The Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, GST, Raipur Versus M/s. Balajee Structural (I) Pvt. Ltd,
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1457 – CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT – TMI
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 19-3-2018
TAXC No. 14 of 2018
Central Excise
SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA AND SHRI RAM PRASANNA SHARMA JJ.
For the Appellant:- Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:- None
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard.
1. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the Revenue, would raise a ground on the strength of the order passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Union of India Vs M/s Harshad Thermic Industries Pvt. Ltd (TAXC No.48 of 2012) decided on 22.11.2012 and Commissioner, Central Excise Customs &
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h 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 by the authority while rendering the judgment. However, the present matte is bit different in the sense that the issue as to whether the structural steel items are capital goods or input has already been settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of tax appeals. The lead case being (TAXC No. 59 of 2011) M/s Vandana Global Limited Siltara Industrial Growth Centre Vs Commissioner,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
al (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 structural steel items which were subject matter of decision making by the Division Bench in the matter of Vandana Global (supra) and other connected matters decided by a common order.
5. In view of the above, even though the impugned order is a non speaking order, the core issue having already been settled by this Court in the matter of Vandana Global (supra), we do not consider the present to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =