2013 (10) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with N.V. Kalantri, for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT by its order dated 21st May, 2012 was justified in remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, is the question raised in this writ petition. 3. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 19th June, 2009 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken for clearing the technical products by offering the Excise duty on the basis of retail sale price under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ['the Act' for short] instead of clearing the same by adopting the transaction value under Section 4 of the Act. 5. After considering the reply and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esaid order, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that, once the matter was heard on merits at length by the CESTAT, it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to pass order on merits instead of remanding the matter back to the file of the Commissioner. On perusal of the order of CESTAT, it is seen that the Tribunal has not remanded the matter seeking any a....