((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise... Appellant Vs. M/s. Magtech Mobile Spares Pvt. Ltd.. Respondent Mr. P.S. Jetly with Ms.H.P.Shah and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi for Appellants. Ms. Padmavati Patil with Mr.M.H. Patil for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the questions formulated as under : (a) Whether CESTAT, Mumbai, was correct in adopting the Notification No. 13/2003-CE(NT) dt.01.03.2003 for the goods cleared before the issuance of the Notification. (b) Whether the Notification No. 13/2003-CE(NT) dt.01.03.2003 can be applied retrospectively. ((-2-)) (c) Whether CESTAT is right in law in holding that the assessee had taken credit of duty amount paid by the supplier, overlooking the fact that the assessee had paid a lesser value for the second hand machinery and claimed credit on the original price. . The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order dated 27.10.2004 has posed himself a question as to what is the quantum of credit admissible on invoice No. PT/001 dated 25.9.2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded a finding of fact that the assessment value of the second hand/damaged machines supplied through aforesaid invoice was Rs.86,500/- and the original invoice is stated to be Rs.3,91,380/- and the credit of Rs.51,101/- has been taken on the same. The respondents herein had contended that in respect of Rule 4(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, an amount equivalent to credit taken, i.e. the amount of Rs.51,101/- was required to be reversed. Considering the rule as it then stood, the Commissioner recorded a finding that the respondents would be entitled to the credit of the duty paid on Rs.86,500/- i.e. Rs.13,480/- and dismissed the appeal. ((-3-)) . In the appeal preferred by the respondents herein, the learned tribunal has reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and granted entire relief as prayed for by the respondents. The learned tribunal did not address itself to the issues as to whether the rule as originally stood or as amended on 1.3.2003 would be applicable. . Considering the fact that no reasons have been recorded by the Tribunal in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we set aside the said order and remand the matter back to the tribunal for reconsderation according to law. . Appeal disposed of accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)