TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating authority for de novo consideration. Out of these 13 appeals, two appeals, E/20752, 20753/2018, have been delinked as the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any finding at all. Out of the remaining 11 appeals, in the first six appeals (mentioned below), the issue involved is denial of CENVAT credit on courier services availed for import of inputs and export of finished goods and in the next 5 appeals (mentioned below), the only issue is denial of CENVAT credit on rent paid on job workers premises. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods like cables and connectors etc. falling under Chapter 85 of the CETAT, 1985. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11 E/20808/2018 10/2015 to 10/2016 Rs.4,80,043 Rs.48,004 3. Heard both parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law and the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) does not have the power of remand. He also submitted that as per 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it existed before 11/05/2001, which provided that Commissioner(Appeals) shall, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling decision or order appealed against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending Section 35A with effect from 11.05.2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001. Under the Notes to clause 122 of the said Bill, it is stated that clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A so as to withdraw the power of the Commissioner(Appeals) to remand matters back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that the remand of the appeals by the Commissioner(Appeals) has caused undue hardship to the appellant. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) though allowed the appeals of the appellant on merits but still has remanded matter back to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration leaving the matter open to be adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority. Further learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-3638-CESTAT- MUM] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impunged order and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appellant can go to the original authority for de novo adjudication. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the appellant on merits but still remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication which according to me is not legally justified because the Revenue has not filed appeal against the impugned order on merit. Further in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cit....