2018 (11) TMI 1457 – CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT – TMI – Non-speaking order – Validity of remand of the case – Held that:- Admittedly, the legal issues on which the case would be decided on merits, even after remit, would be the same as has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vandana Global [2018 (5) TMI 305 – CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT] – Therefore, there is no point in remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh as the case would involve the same structural steel items which were subject matter of decision making by the Division Bench in the matter of Vandana Global – appeal dismissed. – TAXC No. 14 of 2018 Dated:- 19-3-2018 – SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA AND SHRI RAM PRASANNA SHARMA JJ. For the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
estion as to whether the subject goods, MS Joists, MS Channels, Angles, MS Beams, HR Coil, MS plates, JC sheets, HR sheets, and other steel products and cement commonly known as structural steel items (henceforth 'structural steel items') would fall within the meaning of capital goods or input is also involved in these appeals. 3. While agreeing with the submission made by Shri Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Revenue, that if an order is non-speaking or unreasoned it hinders judicial review by the Higher Courts, therefore, it is required to be set aside so that a detailed order is passed by the Tribunal or any other Subordinate Adjudicatory Body enabling the Superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasoning assigned
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Appellate Tribunal (CMA 3814/2014 and connections) that either before 7.7.2009 or in view of the clarificatory amendment made on 07.07.2009 in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Structural Steel Items would be inputs and as such liable to avail CENVAT Credit. 4. It is stated at the bar that the revenue is processing the matter for filing an SLP against the judgment in the matter of Vandana Global (supra). Admittedly, the legal issues on which the case would be decided on merits, even after remit, would be the same as has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vandana Global (supra). Therefore, there is no point in remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh as the case would involve the same s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =