Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Air Liquide Engineering India Pvt. ... vs Cc,Ce&St, Hyderabad on 9 May, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing:09/05/2013
Date of decision:09/05/2013
Application No.ST/Stay/1568/2012
Appeal No.ST/2157/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-original No.7/2012-ST-HYD-III Adjn.(Commr) dt. 30/03/2012 passed by CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Air Liquide Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. Sankar Bala, Consultant for the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Singla, Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay mainly against a demand of service tax and education cesses totaling to Rs.25.68 crores for the period June 2007 to January 2011. When this matter arose before this Bench on a previous occasion, the learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the quantification of the demand was incorrect and he also proposed to file worksheets to show the mistakes of calculation. Accordingly, the worksheets were filed in the form of two paper books in March 2013 and copies thereof were served on the Commissioner(AR) also. Today we have glanced through the papers and have found that the appellant is insisting on a review of the quantification of demand after proper verification of these records. The learned consultant for the appellant submits that, if the principles adopted by the adjudicating authority are correctly implemented in quantitative terms, the result would be nil demand. It is further pointed out that, after receipt of the show-cause notice itself, a similar grievance was raised by the appellant vis-`-vis the quantum of demand raised in the notice. It is further pointed out that, after receipt of the Commissioners order in adjudication of that show-cause notice, an application was made under Section 74 of the Finance Act 1994, requesting for correction of calculation mistakes. The learned consultant for the appellant further points out that the learned Commissioner has since communicated his decision on the said application through a letter dt. 13/12/2012. It is submitted that, as per the said letter, there is no mistake apparent in the impugned order. In other words, the response to the appellants application under Section 74 ibid is in the negative. The learned consultant invites our attention to paragraphs 40.1 and 40.2 of the Commissioners order and submits that the learned Commissioner appears to have obtained a verification report from the investigating officer regarding the amounts claimed as deductions from the value of the projects executed by the appellant and that the learned Commissioner appears to have taken a decision on such claims after examining the verification report. Contextually, it is also submitted that no copy of the verification report was supplied to the appellant at any stage of adjudication.
2. We have also heard the learned Commissioner(AR) who, apart from reiterating the relevant findings of the adjudicating authority, submits that the party can be given a copy of the verification report and their comments thereon and the worksheets filed by them can be considered for a review of the quantum of demand. We think that this stand taken by the learned Commissioner(AR) is very fair, given the fact that the major grievance of the assessee is about the quantification of demand. We have also noted a classification dispute raised in the present appeal. But this will have no bearing on the quantification of the demand. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that this case is fit for remand. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner to pass fresh speaking order in adjudication of the disputes after supplying a copy of the aforesaid verification report to the party and giving them a reasonable opportunity of filing additional written submissions (if any) and copies of relevant documents/worksheets and also of being personally heard. Any classification or other issues are left open.
3. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4