TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue wins appeal as tribunal failed to explain manufacturing determination with proper reasoning</h1> The Bombay HC allowed Revenue's appeal challenging CESTAT's order determining respondent's activities constituted manufacturing. The HC found CESTAT's ... Activities carried out by respondent was manufacturing activity or not - applicability of case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III v/s. Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- It is not found in the impugned order how the facts in the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. The Tribunal ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The matter is remanded for denovo consideration. Since the subject matter pertains to year 2005, the Tribunal is requested to dispose the appeal at the earliest and in any case by 31st December 2024. Appeal disposed off. The Bombay High Court, in an appeal by the Revenue challenging the CESTAT order dated 11th October 2022, addressed whether the respondent's activities constituted 'manufacturing activity.' The Tribunal had relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III v. Ajinkya Enterprises (2012 SCC Online Bom. 20920) to hold the activity as manufacturing. The High Court found the Tribunal's order deficient for failing to explain 'how the facts in the present case are squarely covered' by Ajinkya Enterprises, emphasizing that 'reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question.' The Court held that the Tribunal should have provided, 'howsoever brief,' reasons indicative of an application of mind, especially given the order's susceptibility to further challenge. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, directing disposal by 31st December 2024. The appeal was disposed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
