Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Brakes India Ltd vs Cce, Ltu, Chennai on 12 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/8/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 89/2010 dated 23.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. 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 Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Brakes India Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, LTU, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 12.07.2011 Date of Decision: 12.07.2011 Final Order No. ____________ In this case a show-cause notice dated 5.1.2009 was issued to the assessees who are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles parts, proposing denial of credit of Rs.2,28,441/- of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services, port services and fumigation services used in the export of their goods to various countries during the period December 2007 to October 2008. The assessees replied to the notice stating that they had availed credit of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding services, fumigation services, courier services and goods transport agency services. The adjudicating authority did not record any finding on the stand of the assessees that the above mentioned four services were the only services availed by them and on that they had taken credit of the service tax paid, and confirmed the demand raised in the notice together with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- for the CENVAT credit irregularly availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides. The plea of the assessees that they had availed of two out of the services set out in the show-cause notice namely, clearing and forwarding services and fumigation services along with two other services and did not avail of port services has not been considered by the authorities below. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to consider the contentions of the assessees to the adjudicating authority. Fresh orders are to be passed after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President Rex ??
??
??
??
2