Page 174 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

92 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
4. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Tribunal. The least
that the Tribunal could have done in the interest of uniformity’ was to call
upon the Revenue Authorities to explain why they were making a distinc-
tion between the appellants ‘product and that of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel
without subjecting the appellants’ product to any chemical analysis.
5. In their appeal from the decision of the Tribunal before us the ap-
pellants have again raised the issue that the Tribunal should have consid-
ered the fact that the appellants and Chandulal K. Patel & Co’s products
were identical and were the outcome of an identical process, and that since
the latter had been exempted from paying any central excise duty on the
ground that their product was classifiable under Tariff Heading 24.04, the
appellants should get the same benefit.
6. At the hearing today we sought an explanation from the Learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue Authorities as to why different
stand had been taken in the cases of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel & Company
and the appellant. Since the matter had not been squarely dealt with on
facts at any stage by any of the authorities below, it was not possible for
Learned Counsel to give us the reasons for drawing this distinction be-
tween the two manufacturers and differently classify what were alleged to
be materially the same product.
7. In the circumstances we deem it appropriate to set aside the order
of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for considering
whether the product and process followed by M/s. Chandulal K. Patel &
Co. is the same as that of the appellants’ product for the chemical analysis if
not already done. The Tribunal will thereafter consider the question of clas-
sification of the appellants’ product having regard to the classification of
‘Karta Chhap Zarda’ the chemical analysis report and any other material
that may be placed before it by the respective parties.”
38. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain
the order dated 28 August, 2012 passed by the Commissioner. It is, accordingly,
set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 92 (Tri. - Hyd.)

IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, HYDERABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)
W.S. INDUSTRIES (I) LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS. & C.T., VISAKHAPATNAM
Final Order No. A/31106/2019, dated 3-12-2019 in Appeal No. ST/31225/2018
Refund claim by SEZ unit - Limitation - Notification No. 17/2011-S.T.
prescribing limitation period of one year or such extended period as permitted
by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Cen-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  174