TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in all Appeals : Mr. V. Sundareswaran Senior Panel Counsel For the Respondent in all Appeals : Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan COMMON JUDGMENT Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. All these appeals arise from a common order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, raising the following substantial questions of law: (A)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee when the rubber scrap imported by the respondent herein is liable to CVD? (B)Whether the Tribunal is right in not deciding the issue on merits and simply following the judgment of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority viz., the Commissioner (Appeals-II) dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent herein, upholding the orders-in- original. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent went on further appeals, which were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, by final order dated 21.05.2018. The said order of the Appellate Tribunal is questioned in the present batch of appeals by the Revenue. 4. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the Respondent herein was faced with identical issues in various other ports, including Delhi. In a writ petition filed by them before the Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 02.12.2014, a direction was issued to CBEC to consider the representation of the respondent herein keeping in view the decision of the Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the facts and circumstances of the case, with no orders as to costs. The application is disposed of." 5. The order impugned in the present batch of appeals has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal, following the above order of the Delhi High Court, while setting aside the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals-II). The following portions of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal are relevant in this regard: "5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. The issue has now been laid to rest by the Hon'ble High Court in their own order dt. 3.5.2017, reported in the case of Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India - 2017 (353) ELT 161 (Del.). The relevant part of that judgement is reproduced as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Delhi High Court, finding that it was a case of incomplete adjudication by the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as Chapter 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Chapter Note 6 was not considered. The relevant portion of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder : "5. Having perused the order of the High Court of Delhi which decided the matter in favour of the respondent Assessee, relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Limited vs. Union of India and also the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. M/s Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited we are of the view that the present....