Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hcl Infosystems Ltd. (Unit Iii) vs Commissioner Of Central Excise (St) on 29 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Application No.ST/S/40852/13 & Appeal No.ST/41201/13
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.02/2013 (C) (ST)dt. 26.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri MATHEW JOHN, Technical Member
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
HCL Infosystems Ltd. (Unit III)
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise (ST),
Pondicherry
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HonbleShri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of hearing : 29-11-2013 Date of decision : 29-11-2013 FINAL ORDER No.40605/2013
1. After hearing both sides, it was considered to be appropriate to take both stay petition and appeal together and both sides were heard accordingly after waiving the requirement of predeposit.
2. The issue involved in this appeal and the connected stay petition is Cenvat credit taken by the appellant against four invoices. Appellant was not able to produce the original invoices during adjudication in respect of four entries involving a total cenvat credit of Rs.6,88,489/-. Now before the Tribunal, the advocate for the appellant is able to produce one original invoice and copies of invoices in other three cases certified by the service provider regarding its correctness and authenticity. Since these documents were not produced before the adjudicating authority and the order was passed without considering the documents, I consider it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of the matter in the light of documents now produced. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 2