Mis. F Arwood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan
V.S. Sirpurkar
Judgment Date: 2007-01-17
Court Decision / Holding: Remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III for fresh disposal in accordance with law; the appeal is allowed; liberty granted to both sides to place additional documents before the Commissioner.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; remand to Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law; liberty to file additional documents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mis. F Arwood Industries (P) Ltd.

Respondents

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
• Nikhil Nayyar
• Amit Singhal

Counsels for Respondents

• Subba Rao
• B. Krishna Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment deals with the eligibility of a Goods/Category under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in a challenge brought by Mis. F Arwood Industries (P) Ltd. against the order of the Assessing Officer and the further affirmation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. The appellant, represented by senior counsel A.K. Ganguly and juniors Nikhil Nayyar and Amit Singhal, contends that the treatment of the matter requires reconsideration in light of a controlling precedent. The respondent, represented by Subba Rao and B. Krishna Prasad, defends the impugned orders, maintaining that the decision below was correct and should stand. During hearing, the appellant relied upon the decision in Mis Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr. (2006) 11 SCALE 78, particularly para. 17, to argue that the issue warranted fresh evaluation. The Court, after perusing the Assessing Officer’s order and the Commissioner’s order, remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed with liberty to both sides to place additional documents before the Commissioner. The matter arose from Civil Appeal No. 3715 of 2005, and the judgment is delivered by a two-judge Bench (Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ).

Provisions of Law Cited

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the order of the Assessing Officer, affirmed by the Commissioner, requires reconsideration in view of the principles laid down in Mis Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 11 SCALE 78, particularly para 17, and seeks remand for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The defense highlights that the existing orders reflect proper application of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and the matter should be disposed of in line with established precedent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the orders below correctly applied the applicable tariff provisions and that there is no legal or factual basis to disturb the impugned orders. They submit that the Tribunal’s findings should be preserved and that the matter does not warrant reinvestigation beyond the scope of the statute. They contend that the allowed remand could delay recovery and undermine settled issues.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mis Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr.	(2006) 11 SCALE 78	Positive	The Court relied on this decision to require reconsideration of the lower orders and to remand for fresh disposal in compliance with Mis Craft Interiors.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

- , MIS. F ARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. A _v._ COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI JANUARY 17, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] _Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:_ _Hr.lures and Furniture-Difference between-Exigibility o/-Held, in view of the judgment in Mis. Craft Industries case*, the order passed by_ c _the Assessing OfJicer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, requires re-consideration-Matter remitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh disposal in accordance with law._ _*Mis. Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd._ v. _Commissioner of Central_ D _Excise,Bangalore_ & _Anr.,_ (2006] 11 SCALE 78, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3 715 of2005. __ From the Final Judgment and Order No. 345/2005 dated 3.3.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at E Chennai in Appeal No. E/319111998. A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Nayyar and Amit Singhal for the Appellant. F Subba Rao and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. The Order of the Court delivered : ## ORDER G Heard Mr.A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. H 1093 [2007] I S.C.R 1094 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A The learned senior counsel for th~ appellant at the· time of hearing relied upon the Judgment in _Mis.Craft Interiors Pvt.Ltd_ v. _Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr._ reported in (2006] 11 SCALE 78 and in particular paragraph 17 of the said Judgment. In view of the above Judgment, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai requires re-consideration. We, B therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, ChennaiIII for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Both parties are at liberty to place additional' documents before the C Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. R.P. Appear allowed: