STATDARD RADIATORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-171
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 18,2002
STANDARD RADIATORS PVT.LTD
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SHREE DEVKRUPA SHIP VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2005-11-4] [REFERRED TO]SUPER TYRES PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-213] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUNIL KUMAR BHADORIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH RANA [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA STEELS (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK INT UDYOG KATHA BAGHPAT VS. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U P LKO [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-380] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS. EID PARRY INDIA LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
VINTRON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD VS. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-138] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We have read the order of the Tribunal and heard learned counsel.
(2.)We are satisfied that far greater consideration should have been given by the Tribunal to the case of the assessee than is shown by the order under challenge. The Tribunal is the last fact-finding authority and it is expected that it will discuss the facts in some detail and not cursorily and come to briefly stated conclusions on that basis. We, therefore, think it appropriate that the order of the Tribunal, which is under appeal, should be set aside and the assessee's appeal (No. E/316/88-Bom) should be restored to the file of the Tribunal, Bench at Bombay to be heard and disposed of afresh, having due regard to what we have stated above.
(3.)We do not express any view on the merits of the case on either side.
(2.)We are satisfied that far greater consideration should have been given by the Tribunal to the case of the assessee than is shown by the order under challenge. The Tribunal is the last fact-finding authority and it is expected that it will discuss the facts in some detail and not cursorily and come to briefly stated conclusions on that basis. We, therefore, think it appropriate that the order of the Tribunal, which is under appeal, should be set aside and the assessee's appeal (No. E/316/88-Bom) should be restored to the file of the Tribunal, Bench at Bombay to be heard and disposed of afresh, having due regard to what we have stated above.
(3.)We do not express any view on the merits of the case on either side.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.