Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Avm Construction vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I on 28 July, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.ST/14075/2013-SM [Arising out of OIA No.SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-338/13-14 dated 12.09.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Surat-I] M/s Avm Construction Appellant Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, Consultant For Respondent: Shri A. Mishra, A.R. (Addl. Commissioner) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:28.07.2017 Final Order No._A/11497/2017 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against the order-in-Appeal SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-338/13-14 dated 12.09.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Surat-I.
2. The Ld. Advocate submits that while confirming the impugned order-in-original, even though various grounds have been taken assailing the impugned order-in-original, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any finding on their submissions and simply endorsed the findings in the order of the adjudi+4cating authority. He submits that the order is a non-speaking order hence, not sustainable. Further he submits that no penalty is imposable on them.
3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the appeal observed as follows:
Therefore, keeping in view above position, it is concluded that the findings of Ld. Adjudicating Authorities do reflect the correct application of legal position to the facts of the case, hence it is sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order of Adjudicating Authorities is legal and correct.
In view of above discussion, points of determination, findings and reasons therefore, I hereby order under Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the confirmation of subject order appealed against, and rejects the appeal.
5. In the grounds of appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has raised various grounds assailing the impugned order-in-original. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered any of the grounds while passing the order. Needless to mention, that conclusion with reasonings is the heart and soul of the order as observed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, which is missing in the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the arguments advanced by the appellant, and pass a speaking order.
6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 2 | Page ST/14075/2013-SM