Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Maa Tarini & Co vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 July, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.ST/S/632/2012
AND
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.ST/A/283/2012
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.CCE/BBSR-II/S.TAX/NO.04/COMMISSIONER/2012 DATED 12.03.2012 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR-II)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
M/S. MAA TARINI & CO
(PROP-SHRI BAJRANG KUMAR AGARWAL)
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR-II
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRI KARTIK KURMY, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI A.K.BISWAS, A.R.(SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision:23.07.2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75432/2014 Per Dr. D.M.Misra This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.54.90 lakh and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77, of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the relevant period, 2006-07 to 2010-11(upto December, 2010), they had been rendering services under the category of Cargo Handling Services relating to loading of Iron Ore Fines meant for export. The demand had been confirmed against the Applicant on the ground that they could not adduce sufficient evidences in support of their claim, before the ld. adjudicating Commissioner. Ld. Advocate fairly admits that before the ld. Commissioner, they could not produce relevant export documents, since they did not possess the same at the relevant point of time. He also submits that necessary documents along with the Chartered Accountants Certificate, to the extent of 56% of the demand confirmed have now been procured by them and placed the same before the Tribunal. For the balance amount, they would be receiving the documents shortly and can produce before the ld. Commissioner. Under instruction of the client, however, he makes an offer to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh and prays that the matter be remanded to the ld. Adjudicating Authority for considering the documents which they could not produce at the time of adjudication proceedings.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the case to the ld. adjudicating Commissioner.
5. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the Appeal itself, could be disposed off, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, we take up the present Appeal for disposal. We find that the limited issue involved in the present case relates to the facts as to whether the Appellant were eligible to claim the benefit of exemption from the levy of Cargo Handling Services in relation to the cargo meant for export. In the initial stage before the ld. adjudicating Commissioner, they could not adduce sufficient evidences to establish that the cargo which they handled, were meant for export. Consequently, the demand was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner. Now, the Appellant claim that they could procure necessary documents, to establish that the cargo in question for the relevant period, were meant for export, and also they would place necessary documents/certificates in support of their claim. However, we find that the said certificate and documents relate to 56% of the demand. The ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that they are now in the process of procuring the documents for the remaining quantity of goods. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter may be remanded to the ld. Adjudicating Authority for considering the evidences afresh, that would be placed by the Appellant. However, as submitted by the ld. AR for Revenue, the Appellant be put into terms. Consequently, we direct the Appellant to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) within a period of eight weeks from today, and report compliance directly, to the ld. adjudicating Commissioner. After recording compliance, the ld. Commissioner would proceed to adjudicate the case afresh. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition also stands disposed off.
(Pronounced & dictated in the open court.)
SD/-31.07.14 SD/-30.07.14
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DUTTA/
3
ST/A/283/2012
3