Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nagreeka Exports Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. ST/221,222,223/12-MUM [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. PII/RKS/17 TO 19/2012 dtd. 17/1/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Pune-II] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
M/s. Nagreeka Exports Ltd.
:
Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 23/1/2015
Date of decision 23/1/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is against Order-in- Appeal No. PII/RKS/17 TO 19/2012 dtd. 17/1/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Pune-II, wherein the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the orders-in-original dated 24/6/2011, 28/6/2011 and 28/6/2011 passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolhapur-II. The fact of the case is that the appellant filed three refund claims for Rs. 2,73,174/-, Rs. 23,337/- and 74,275/- under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7/7/2009 against the services relating to Terminal Handling Charges, banking and other financial services and CHA used by them for export of goods. The original adjudicating authority rejected refund claims vide three orders in original on the ground that the appellant have not submitted the required documents for processing of refund claims. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before me.
2. Shri. Sachin Chitnis, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that the most of the documents have been submitted by them before the adjudicating authority under their reply dated 4/5/2011. He submits that the adjudicating authority has given three dates of hearing in one hearing notice. This should be treated as one opportunity of hearing and the adjudicating authority should have given more opportunity for the hearing as provided under law. He fairly submits that some of the documents were not submitted before the adjudicating authority, which he undertook to submits if one more opportunity is provided. He submits that the matter may be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority.
3. Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that though the three days of hearing given in one notice but considering request of the appellant Ld. Adjudicating authority has given one month time for submission of all the documents required for processing of refund claim. Therefore Ld. Adjudicating authority has complied the requirement of principle of natural justice. He prays that the impugned order may be upheld.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5. From the adjudication order as well as in the order in-appeal the fact is not under dispute that some of the documents like attested invoice were not submitted before the original authority. However this deficiency not in respect of all the cases. I am of the view atleast in whichever claim all the documents were submitted the original authority should have grant refund. Considering the statement of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that appellant undertake to submit all the documents before the original authority, I remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with direction to the appellant to produce all the necessary documents before adjudicating authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter in a further period of one month from the submissions of all the documents by the appellant. Needless to say that, the adjudicating authority shall grant sufficient opportunity for being heard to the appellant. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 4