Tribunal remands case for reevaluation after allowing appeals on grounds of reconsideration and fair hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a comprehensive reevaluation. The Commissioner's order was set aside due to the need for reconsideration in light of case laws cited by the assessee. Both parties were to be given a fair hearing, emphasizing the importance of making a well-founded decision after considering all relevant aspects.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata regarding duty payment and CENVAT Credit on exempted goods.
- Whether the goods cleared under the 'SFIS Scheme' are exempt or not.
- Allowance of CENVAT Credit on duty paid materials used in the manufacture of exempt goods.
- Whether the order passed by the Commissioner requires to be set aside and merits fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee, a manufacturer of excisable goods, and the Revenue against the Commissioner's order. The assessee cleared goods under the 'SFIS Scheme' without duty payment, relying on exemption Notification No. 34/2006-CE. The Commissioner demanded payment under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, alleging ineligibility for CENVAT Credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempt goods. The Revenue also appealed against allowing CENVAT Credit on duty paid materials used for exempt goods.

2. The assessee argued that goods under the 'SFIS Scheme' are not exempt, citing case laws supporting their position. They requested a remand due to the unavailability of relevant judgments during the Commissioner's decision. The Revenue contended that allowing CENVAT Credit on duty paid materials for exempt goods was beyond the show cause notice's scope, referencing cases where similar schemes were considered exempt.

3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order needed reconsideration in light of the case laws cited by the assessee, which were not available earlier. The Commissioner did not address crucial issues raised by both parties, necessitating a fresh decision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for a comprehensive reevaluation, ensuring a fair hearing for both sides.

4. Ultimately, the appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner to revisit the issues raised and make a well-founded decision after considering all relevant aspects. The order was to be pronounced after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments.

---