Case: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Vs. M/S KHURANA OLEO CHEMICAL

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.2. To determine the entitlement of the respondent-M/s. Khurana Oleo Chemical under the area based exemption scheme, which has been held against the respondent by the primary and appellate authority, the learned Tribunal was, inter alia, required to record its finding on the contention advanced on behalf of the appellantRevenue that M/s. Stanley Controls at the relevant point of time i.e. when the respondent had taken over was a non-functional unit and has stopped its manufacturing process. It is on the aforesaid basis that the two authorities had taken the view that the respondent had taken over M/s. Stanley Controls only for the purpose of getting relief/exemption under the notification in question.3. The learned Tribunal has not dealt with the said aspect of the matter despite the categorical findings recorded by the adjudicating authorities i.e. primary and appellate authority. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal for a reconsideration of the said question.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]3. The learned Tribunal has not dealt with the said aspect of the matter despite the categorical findings recorded by the adjudicating authorities i.e. primary and appellate authority. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal for a reconsideration of the said question.