TAMILNADU JAI BHARATH MILLS LTD. Vs. CESTAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Appeal Nos. E/31 & 32/2003, dated 15-9-2010. The appellant has been doing the business of manufacturing cotton yarn and the respondent has given a show cause notice, dated 5-1-2001 and thereby directed the appellant to pay central excise duty equivalent to customs duty for the month of December 1999. The respondent has given a similar show cause notice, dated 29-1-2001 for similar purpose for the period started from January 2000 to November 2000. The said notices have been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise by way of claiming exemption under Notification No. 8/97 and the same have been rejected. Against the rejection orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, an Appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal has been filed and the same has been allowed. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeal, an Appeal has been preferred before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein, the claim of assessee (appellant) has been rejected by way of passing a common order. The same has been challenged by way of filing these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

(2.) At the time of admitting these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the following common substantial question of law has been formulated:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that CMA No. 1 of 2011 is related to the month of December 1999 and CMA No. 2 of 2011 is related to January 2000 to November 2000. Even though the appellant has claimed exemption under Notification No. 8/97 for both periods, the Appellate Tribunal has not at all considered the period mentioned in CMA No. 2 of 2011. Under the said circumstances, the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside.