Where all the factual facts are available on the records, the Tribunal couldn’t remand back the case
PrintListen to this Article
Where all the factual facts are available on the records, the Tribunal couldn’t remand back the case
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay, in the case of L'Oreal India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 561 (Bombay)] on following issue:
Issue:
Whether the Tribunal could remand back the case even though all factual facts are available on the records?
Facts & background:
L'Oreal India (Pvt.) Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was engaged in the manufacture of cosmetic products classified into two categories, namely Technical products cleared to Salon/ Beauty Parlour (“Technical products”) and Retail sale products meant for sale to consumers (“Retail sale products”). The Petitioner was valuing both the products under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the Excise Act”), but, the Department argued that Technical products were to be valued as per Section 4 of the Excise Act.
The Adjudicating Authority after considering the reply of the Petitioner dropped the proceedings and held that both the products were to be valued under Section 4A of the Excise Act. Being aggrieved, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT. The Hon’ble CESTAT set aside the Order of the Adjudicating Authority and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass fresh order on merits regarding valuation of the Technical products and also after considering the issue of limitation.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay arguing that since the matter was heard on merits before the Hon’ble Tribunal, the Tribunal should have decided the appeal and not remanded the matter back.
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay relying upon the finding of the Apex Court in the case of M.G. Shahani & Co. (Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise [1994 (73) ELT 3] and after observing that the Tribunal had not remanded the matter seeking any additional facts, held as under:
- If, on materials on record, the Tribunal can analyse evidence and arrive at a factual conclusion, the Tribunal ought not to remand the matter and instead hear the matter and pass order on merits;
- Though dispute related to valuation of Technical products and the Adjudicating Authority held that both products are liable to be assessed under Section 4A of the Excise Act, the Tribunal should have decided appeal with reference to valuation of Technical products;
- It was not proper to set aside Adjudication Order and remand the case for fresh adjudication.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 255
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments