Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Itc Ltd vs Cce, Chennai I on 28 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/42101/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.9/2013 (M-I) dated 22.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. ITC Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai I Respondent
Appearance Mrs. L. Mythili, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 28.01.2016 Final Order No. 40111 / 2016 While the appellants grievance is that the service of courier was used to send the samples and final products and also goods sent for job work, learned Commissioner (Appeals) without calling for the respective evidence, he simply has reached to the conclusion that appellant did not provide sufficient documentary evidence. Such an observation shows that the appellate Commissioner has casually passed the order without depicting what is the nature of document required to satisfy to the law. When he himself was under confusion, the appellant should not suffer. Therefore, matter is remanded to him to thoroughly examine the materials on record and also appreciate the controversy.
2. Law has well codified the duty of a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that is adopted by the Finance Act, 1994. His process beings to determine the issue, examine the material fact, test the evidence, apply the law and give reason of his decision. If such a course is followed then only an order shall be said to be reasoned and speaking and process of natural justice is said to be followed.
3. The present order having suffered from the legal infirmity that warrants for remand in the interest of justice to learned Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant is entitled to reasonable opportunity of hearing and also argue both on facts as well as law and lead evidence if any in support of its defence.
4. Learned counsels specific prayer is that courier service should not be equated with outward freight service. By mis-classification of service, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has caused genuine hardship to the appellant. Such a prayer should also be given weightage in the eyes of law by learned Commissioner (Appeals).
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2