TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposing the following two questions : "[1] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules provides for facility of exemption from payment of duty on the goods at the time of clearance from the job worker's premises even in absence of corresponding exemption notification exempting such goods from payment of duty on clearance from factory gate? [ii] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the requirements of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 were duly fulfilled?" 2. On 28-4-2010, this Court had passed the following order in each of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004. A team of officers visited the premises of M/s. Shiri Hari and carried out preventive checks on 19/20-2-2005 on the basis of information that M/s. Shri Hari was evading central excise duty by indulging in clearance of excisable goods, viz. Polyester Textured Yarn falling under Chapter No. 5402.32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without payment of central excise duty. It was noticed that M/s. Shri Hari had manufactured and cleared polyester textured yarn classifiable under Chapter 5402.32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on job work, to M/s. Rapier Manufacturing Company (I) Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Rapier) without payment of duty of excise and without preparing and issuing cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cover duty of excise as well as proposing penalty against other respondents under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with interest, as detailed in the show cause notice. Vide order dated 9th January 2007 made by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, the duty as well as the penalty proposed, came to be confirmed. Being aggrieved, the respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the impugned order has allowed the appeals and granted consequential relief to the respondents. 7. Subsequently, the respondents had moved an application for rectification of mistake before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25th August 2009. 8. Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned Senior Standin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings : "[3] We have considered the submission by both the sides and perused the records. In this case, the appellants manufacture PTY following the procedure prescribed under CCR. In this connection, it is to be mentioned that procedure prescribed under Notification No. 214/86 and Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR are not very different from each other. There is no dispute that the raw materials were sent under challan and finished products were returned to the principal. There is also no dispute that the principal had paid duty on the finished product. In these circumstances, the requirement of provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR have not been fulfilled. We also f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see cannot be prevented from availing this facility and, therefore, the clearance cannot be held as irregular." On a plain reading of the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal, it is difficult to comprehend as to which is the procedure which is being referred to by the Tribunal and which facility can the assessee be not prevented from availing. 12. Thus, it s apparent that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not reflect as to what was the controversy which the Tribunal was called upon to decide; what was the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to by the Tribunal and as to in what manner the said decisions were applicable to the facts of the case. The Commissioner in his order dated 9th January, 2007 and more particularly i....