M\/s. Siva Sakthi Packaging Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 904 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 2-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/41107\/2018 – Final Order No. 42761\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellant purchased the plant and machinery along with stock of raw materials from M\/s. Indian Printing & Packaging Company with effect from 7.1.2015. The appellant availed the SSI exemption for clearing the goods. The department noticed that the earlier manufacturer was not availing the SSI exe<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n matter for re-adjudication by AC \/ DC. The appellant is now before the Tribunal against such order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e matter to AC \/ DC for reconsideration of the issue and that the impugned order requires no interference. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Siva Sakthi Packaging Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai SouthCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 904 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 2-11-2018Appeal No. E\/41107\/2018 – Final Order No. 42761\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent … Continue reading “M\/s. Siva Sakthi Packaging Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15066","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. The ld. consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the Superintendent who had adjudicated the matter had dropped the proceedings and the department had not preferred appeal on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) and they had confined their appeal on the issue of jurisdiction. Since there was no appeal filed by the department on merits, the order in original dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Superintendent would apply and therefore the demand cannot sustain. It is also argued by him that the appellant having purchased the factory only 7.1.2015, the appellant has to be considered as an<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the order in original dated 16.2.2017 was passed by the Superintendent of the concerned division. As per circular No. 1049\/37\/2016-CX dated 29.9.2016, the Superintendent is also given jurisdiction to adjudicate matters which are not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. It is specifically stated in para 2 clause (i) of the said circular that the Superintendent will not be having jurisdiction to adjudicate case involving taxability, classification, valuation etc. Therefore, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the Order in Original passed by the Superintendent da<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n