Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Industral Cable India Ltd on 7 October, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi COURT No. II ST/STAY APPLICATION NO. 2804/10-SM IN & SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.53/ST/CHD-II/09 dated 9.04.10 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II) CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Reptd. by Shri R.K. Gupta, D.R. Versus M/s. Industral Cable India Ltd., Respondents
None Date of Hearing/decision: 7th October, 2010 Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
FINAL ORDER NO. DATED Per D.N. Panda:
Revenue came in appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority with consequential relief. Adjudicating authority disallowed claim of refund of Rs. 15,394/- made by the respondents due to settling of dispute under Dispute Resolution Scheme of 2008. According to the order of the authorities below the respondents deposited Rs. 20,195/- vide GAR-7 dated 3.9.2008. The disallowance was made on the ground that there was no formal protest made before the competent authority in the above scenario.
2. Learned Appellate Authority found that there was only procedural irregularities for which refund is admissible.
3. Learned D.Rs contention is that when the certificate of settlement is not on record, it is not possible to find whether the respondents are entitled to refund. Therefore, first appellate authoritys order suffers from legal infirmity.
4. In the absence of respondents today, who have neither caused presence nor sought any adjournment, the record was looked into to test the submissions of the Revenue. Record clearly shows that although amount involved is very small learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined about the amount in dispute whether settled under the scheme through a proper order and the terms thereof. He has only mentioned that the settlement was done by order dated 12.1.2009. Nothing more is exhibited by the order about the terms of the dispute resolution.
5. If there was any scheme declared by the Government, it was necessary for the appellate authority to bring the scheme thread bear on the body of the order and the examination should have been done in that light. So also the reason, why the respondents should get refund should have been brought out in clear terms. There may be procedural irregularities which should not stand as a bar for advancement of justice. But order should be speaking without being cryptic.
6. Revenue having been aggrieved by the contention raised in para 2 of its appeal memorandum it would be proper to sent the matter back to the learned appellate authority to re-examine the issue in the light of the provisions of scheme and the contentions of the Revenue as raised above.
7. In view of the aforesaid conclusion both the stay application as well as appeal are disposed off remanding the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh and reasoned order.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3