Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ashok Iron Works Ltd vs Cce, Belgaum on 19 April, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court II
Date of Hearing:19/04/2013
Date of decision:19/04/2013
Application No.E/COD/66/2012; E/Stay/765, 554-556/2012
Appeal No.E/1129, 853-855/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.14/2012 dt. 06/01/2012; No.16/2012 dt. 06/01/2012; No.15/2012 dt. 16/01/2012 & No.11/2012 dt. 05/01/2012 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore)
For approval and signature:
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?
Yes
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
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. Ashok Iron Works Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Belgaum
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. M.A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy] The appellants have four units in different places. Three units are engaged in the manufacture of castings and parts of motor vehicles and one unit undertakes the machining work. In respect of all the four units, proceedings were initiated for denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that steel items like MS angles, channels etc. have been used in foundation/fabrication of structural support and therefore credit is not admissible. The demand is for over a period of 5 years invoking the extended period. In the four appeals, the issue is same and in all the cases, extended period has been invoked, CENVAT credit denied and demanded with interest and penalties have been imposed. Since the issue involved in all the cases is same, COD application, stay applications and appeals are taken up together for disposal.
2. In the case of appeal No.E/1129/2012, there is a delay of 19 days. The learned counsel explained that the delay occurred because the officer in-charge of Central Excise work went on leave and the substitute did not know the importance and did not know how to attend to this work and consequently delay occurred. Since the delay has been explained satisfactorily, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. Detailed submissions for grant of stay and waiver of predeposit were made. The learned counsel submits that in all the cases, CENVAT credit has been denied on various steel inputs on the ground that they have been used in supporting structures and foundation etc. and therefore credit is not admissible. However he submits that in reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant had submitted invoice-wise details of inputs/capital goods used, the usage the same was put to, to show that they were not actually used in supporting structures/foundation and he also stated that in some of the cases, items were components and parts. However these statements have not been considered and there are no findings on the statements. Further he also submits that the original adjudicating authority got verifications done by the Superintendent and while there is a mention of verification reports in the Orders-in-Original, a copy of the same was not given to the appellants thereby resulting in denial of principles of natural justice.
4. On going through the records, I find that the submissions relating to non-consideration of the statements attached to the show-cause notice reply and non-furnishing of verification report of the range officer to the appellant is correct. Thereby, there is a denial of principles of natural justice in this case. Under these circumstances, instead of waiving the predeposit and postponing the final hearing, it would be appropriate at this stage itself to remand the matter. The learned Deputy Commissioner(AR) has no objection for the course of action. Since both sides agreed that the matter is require to be remanded and I also find that it is essential to ensure that principles of natural justice are observed, the requirement of predeposit is waived and impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to supply copies of verification reports to the appellant and thereafter adjudicate the matter after a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Nr 4