(Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ____________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Khurana Oleo Chemical _______________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 831/2018, decided on July 25, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.
2. To determine the entitlement of the respondent-M/s. Khurana Oleo Chemical under the area based exemption scheme, which has been held against the respondent by the primary and appellate authority, the learned Tribunal was, inter alia, required to record its finding on the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Revenue that M/s. Stanley Controls at the relevant point of time i.e. when the respondent had taken over was a non-functional unit and has stopped its manufacturing process. It is on the aforesaid basis that the two authorities had taken the view that the respondent had taken over M/s. Stanley Controls only for the purpose of getting relief/exemption under the notification in question.
3. The learned Tribunal has not dealt with the said aspect of the matter despite the categorical findings recorded by the adjudicating authorities i.e. primary and appellate authority. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal for a reconsideration of the said question.
4. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and remand the matter for de novo consideration on the point indicated above. The appeal consequently is allowed.
Civil Appeal No(s). 831/2018
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh _____________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Khurana Oleo Chemical _________________________ Respondent
(IA No. 128845/2017-STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 25-07-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ASG
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv.
Ms. L. Charanya, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv.
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Manish Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Shrey Ashat, Adv.
Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
5. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
6. Consequently, pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
———
