Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 8 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. E/S/2938/12 Mum
In
Appeal No. E/1895/12 -Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. US/553/RGD/2012 dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, 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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for the appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl.Comm (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 08/01/2014 Date of decision : 08/01/2014 O R D E R No:..
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the appellant were asked to reverse CENVAT credit on the goods lost in fire.
2. Perused the impugned order.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that as the documents in support of their claim that the inputs were issued for production, were not produced before the lower authorities, therefore, he failed to consider the same and dismissed their appeal. In these circumstances, after hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, appeal as well as stay application are taken up for disposal together.
4. As the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that no documents were provided to the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, impugned order deserves no merits, hence set aside. But in the interest of justice, matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the fact whether the goods destroyed in fire were issued for production or not, thereafter, pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
5. Appeal as well as stay application are disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 2