Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bilcare Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I & ... on 26 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION Nos. C/S/277, 411, 415/10 APPEAL Nos. C/150, 240, 244/10 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CUS/CM/115/2009 dated 30.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Goa) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Bilcare Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I & II Respondent Appearance:
Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant, for appellant Shri Navneet, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 26.8.2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties. Common issue is involved in all these applications and they are taken up together. The demands are confirmed on the ground that the applicant failed to fulfil the export obligation. The contention of the applicant is that after passing of the impugned order, the applicant received Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODC) from the competent authority and produced copies of the certificates. The contention is that as the applicant now obtained the Export Obligation Discharge Certificates, therefore the demands are not sustainable.
3. The Revenue submitted that the certificates which are now produced were not before the appellate authority and require verification.
4. We find that as the applicant now produced the necessary EODC from the DGFT after the passing of the impugned order and the same requires verification, therefore the impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of duties and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the Export Obligation Discharge Certificates produced by the appellant and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2