Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Paramount Communication Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 19 April, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
E/Stay/3836 of 2011 in &
Central Excise appeal No. 2988 of 2011-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 272(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2011 dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I, Jaipur]
Date of Hearing/decision: 19th April, 2012
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Paramount Communication Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Ms. R. Jagdev, SDR Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Learned Counsel submits that the invoices showing payment of service tax in respect of services received from canteen was not considered by the appellate authority, but has dismissed the appeal.
2. Perusal of appellate order does not precisely disclose what were the material facts in controversy before the appellate authority. Reading from 7 to 9 does not disclose whether facts of the appellant received consideration of the appellate authority. He simply discussed the law and without examining the facts and evidence on the touch stone of law, he came to conclusion. Nothing was under scrutiny to ascertain what were the contents of invoices. If departure to law is made by the appellate authority, that shall result in mockery. Therefore, waiving requirement of pre-deposit, matter is remanded to the appellate authority to ascertain the contents of invoices and find the truth behind such documents. If he is able to come to conclusion that canteen service received relates to workers, there is no bar to grant the relief following the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.), and the decision of Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. ABB Limited, reported in 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.).
3. In the result, stay application is allowed, and appeal is remanded to the appellate authority to grant fair opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate order.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 2