Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Skf Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, ... on 10 March, 2016
kkIn The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad
Appeal No.E/12327/2014-DB
[Arising out of OIO No.AHM-EXCUS-002-COMMR-062-13-14, dt.11.03.2014, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad]
M/s SKF Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs
Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-II Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Shri A. Agarwal, Chartered Accountants For Respondent: Shri Sameer Chitkara, A.R. (Addl.Commissioner) For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:10.03.2016 Order No. A/10197 / 2016, dt.10.03.2016 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This Appeal has been filed against OIO No. No.AHM-EXCUS-002-COMMR-062-13-14, dt.11.03.2014 passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-II.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Ball or Roller Bearings, falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, the Appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on various input services viz. services rendered at their guest house, Customs House Agent service, Outdoor Catering Service, Commercial or Industrial Construction service, Business Support service, Management Consultancy Service, etc, considering the same as admissible input services as defined under Section 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. A Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of the said inadmissible credit and also on other grounds of improper documents. Analysing the evidences on record and the submissions advanced by the Appellant, the learned Commissioner disallowed the CENVAT Credit on various grounds including the ground of non-production of sufficient evidences to substantiate their claim that these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Consequently, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed by the Adjudicating authority.
3. The learned Chartered Accountant Shri S.S. Gupta submits that most of the input services are admissible to them being used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods; also the credit has been availed on proper documents. He has fairly accepted that in some of the cases, they could not place sufficient evidences before the learned Commissioner to justify their case that the services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods; also corroborative evidences of proper documents were not placed. He submits that a fair chance be given to them to put up the evidences which they are now in possession being procured after completion of adjudication proceedings.
4. The learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the matter to the Adjudicating authority; for scrutiny of the evidences.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that in majority of the cases, the Commissioner has confirmed the recovery of CENVAT Credit, observing that the Appellant could not satisfy by production of sufficient evidences in support of their claim that the services, on which they had claimed CENVAT Credit, have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods in their factory premises. Also, corroborative evidences could not be placed, whenever deficiency in documents was found on which CENVAT Credit was availed. The learned Chartered Accountant claims that all the evidences are now available with them. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the Appellant should be given a fair chance to produce all evidences before the Adjudicating authority to substantiate their claims. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority for deciding the issues afresh, taking into consideration the evidences on record and the evidences that would be produced by the Appellant. All issues are kept open. Needless to say mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court)
(P.M. Saleem) (Dr. D.M. Misra)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
4