Page 122 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

800 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ent view in a matter, possibly the entire law in relation to the precedents
and ratio decidendi will have to be re-written and, in our opinion, that cannot
be done. Moreover, by not following the law laid down by this Court, the
High Court or the subordinate Courts would also be violating the provi-
sions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”
13. In the light of above discussion, we find that exemption provided
under Section 32 of the COPTA for export of tobacco product is rightly conferred
on the duty free shops and challenges to the provisions of the COPTA cannot be
entertained. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dis-
missed. Accordingly, we dismiss the Public Interest Litigation. Rule is dis-
charged. No order as to cost.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 800 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., CHENNAI
Versus
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
C.M.A. Nos. 450-451 of 2017, decided on 28-1-2020
1
Strictures against CESTAT for non-consideration of facts and issue in-
volved and passing of cryptic order - The Tribunal being final fact finding
body is duty bound to discuss relevant facts, and issues arising in the case, and
then only, discussing the relevant law, case law and giving its own reasons,
can decide the case Court recorded its dismay at the tenor of the cryptic order
and set aside the order of the Tribunal. [para 3]
Case remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel, for the
Appellant.
Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Vineet Kothari, J. (Common)]. - These appeals have
been filed by the Revenue against the short order of the Learned Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (‘CESTAT’ for short) South Zone, Chennai,
dated 7 April 2015, on the issue of CENVAT credit incurred by the Assessee -
M/s. Hundai Motor India Ltd., against services received from foreign service
provider.
2. The Learned CESTAT has merely referred to two judgments in para-
graph 2 of the order and has concluded that the Assessee was entitled to such
Cenvat credit.
3. We are rather dismayed at the tenor of the cryptic orders written by
the CESTAT in such matters. The Tribunal being the final fact finding body, is
duty bound to discuss relevant facts of the case and issues, arising in such facts,
and then only, discussing the relevant laws, including the case laws and giving
its own reasons, it can reach a particular conclusion. We cannot sustain these
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order Nos. 40361-40362/2015, dated 7-4-2015 by CESTAT, Chennai.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  122