TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of the earlier order cannot be availed of by the assessee. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was required to discuss in details the facts, set out the submissions and analyse the materials in accordance with the settled legal principles. That is not done admittedly. The department's / revenue's appeal restored to the file of the Tribunal for a decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. - Central Excise Appeal No. 76 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ. Mr. M. Dwivedi with Ms Shalaka Gujar for Appellant. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jain with Mr. P. K.Shetty and Mr. Ramnath Prabhu for Respondent. P. C. : 1] This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which are not manufactured by the assessee. 5] The assessee accepted this partial success before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the Revenue challenged the appellate order before the Tribunal. 6] It raised several contentions and which have been noted from paragraphs 3 to 5.2 of the order under appeal. 7] The appeal itself is disposed of with the following observations and findings : 7. I observe the issue herein is squarely covered by earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case 2008 (10) STR 382 dated 08.10.2008 , relating to the same issue. I further find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have allowed the appeal of assessee in terms of the ruling of this Tribunal in assessee's case. Hence, I dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the later order was not available for the Tribunal's perusal, the earlier one was definitely on its file. Whether that order rendered in 2012 and in assessee's own case concludes the matter in favour of the assessee and nothing more is required to be adjudicated or decided is not clarified in the order under appeal. If there was only one issue and that stands concluded then the Tribunal ought not to have referred to two issues arising from the subject show cause notice dated 3rd May 2006. Whether both are concluded against the Revenue by the order of this Court as aforesaid and confirming the view of the Tribunal rendered earlier, then, there was no need to refer to CENVAT Credit Rules, the arguments of the departmental rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
