Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sundaram Industries Ltd vs Cce, Madurai on 23 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/71/2009
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 78/2008 dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Madurai).
For approval and signature
Honble JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai : Respondent
Appearance Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv., for the appellant Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT Date of hearing : 23.12.09 Date of decision : 23.12.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Service tax credit has been denied on the ground that:-
a) The description of taxable service has not been mentioned in the invoices,
b) Credit has been taken did not contain proper documents specified under Rule 9 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004,
c) Address of the manufacturer was not furnished,
d) Address of the service provider was not furnished etc., In addition, penalty has been imposed on the assessees.
2. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the demand and penalty. I find that in an almost similar situation in the case of the same assessees, the Tribunal has remanded the case for fresh decision in the light of details furnished by the assessees before the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 1775/09 dated 19.11.09. Following the same route in this case also, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner (A), who shall consider the various submissions raised by the assesses and then pass a fresh order after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assesses of being heard in their defence and substantiating their claim.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE PRESIDENT BB 3