Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Laxai Avanti Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 20 October, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - Division Bench
Court - I
Date of Hearing: 20.10.2011
Date of decision: 20.10.2011
Application No. E/St/503/2011
Appeal No. E/790/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02/2011 (H-IV) (D) CE dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, 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. Laxai Avanti Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax
Hyderabad Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, SDR, for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) STAY ORDER No._____________________2011 FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 Per M. Veeraiyan After hearing both sides for a while on the stay application, we are of the opinion that the appeal itself should be decided finally and accordingly we dispose of the stay petition and proceed to consider the appeal finally.
2. A show-cause notice dated 09.12.2009 proposing demand of duty of Rs. 22,12,129/- being duty leviable on goods procured duty free during the period January 2008 to February 2008 along with interest thereon and proposing penalties was issued by the Additional Commissioner. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 05.08.2010 dropping proceedings initiated in the said show-cause notice. The department has filed appeal against the said order and Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 31.01.2011 held that the remission granted by the lower authority was not proper. However he has not given any specific findings on the proposal in the show-cause notice which included demand of duty, interest and imposition of penalties.
3. Learned Advocate submits that certain communications have been issued by the Jurisdictional Suptd. demanding duty in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On a perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) we do not find any quantify demand or demand of interest or a decision on the penalty. When the order of the original authority is in favour of the assessee and when the Commissioner (Appeals) is hearing the appeal of the department, in our considered opinion the Commissioner is bound to give findings on the various proposals in the show-cause notice. As such findings on the various proposals in the show-cause notice are not available in the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. All issues are kept open.
(Pronounced & dictated in open Court)
(M. VEERAIYAN) (P.G. CHACKO)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
iss