Case Law Details
AI Champdany Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The Appellant is before us against the impugned order dated 01/12/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:-
“9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 27.07.2007 are liable to be set aside. Further, in respect of second and third appeals, the demands are barred by limitation. Further, the demands, can only be made when goods have been removed from the factory. Further, Jute Cess in such cases would be payable on the transaction values. In view of these, I set aside the impugned order with direction that the matter should not be taken up by the lower authority for decision afresh till the remission applications are finally disposed of by the Commissioner and communicated to the appellant.”
2. From the impugned order we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically stated that Jute Cess will be payable only when the goods are removed from the factory and hence the demands made in all three Orders are not sustainable. Accordingly, he set aside the Orders-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating authority. He also observed that the demands in respect of two caseswere barred by limitation. Thus, as per the impugned order, no demand made in the Orders-in-Original survives.
3. The Appellants are before us against the remark of the Appellate Authority saying that the matter should not be taken up by the lower authority for decision afresh till remission applications are finally disposed of by the Commissioner and communicated to the Appellant. This appears to be a hypothetical situation which has not arisen so far, even after passing of 13 years from the impugned order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
