Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Daimler Chrystler India P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I on 31 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/2094 to 2096/05
(Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. P-I/78/2005 dated 02.02.2005, P-I/123/2005 dated 25.02.2005, P-I/40/2005 dated 13.01.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
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 No 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?
M/s. Daimler Chrystler India P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.P. Damle, AC (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 31-08-2016 Date of decision : 31-08-2016 O R D E R No: ..
Per: M.V. Ravindran These three appeals are disposed of by a common order as they pertain to very same assessee.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. Appeal no. E/2094/05 and E/2096/05 are directed against Order-in-Appeal nos. P-I/78/2005 dated 02.02.2005 and P-I/40/2005 dated 13.01.2005.
4. On perusal of the records, we find that the tax impact in these appeals are negligible and hence they are dismissed as such, leaving the larger issue open to be decided in appropriate matter.
5. In E/2095/05 the issue is regarding the refund of amount of central excise duty paid on the vehicles which are cleared as taxis. The said refund claim has been rejected by both the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant did not file the claim within stipulated period and also that the registration of the vehicles were as a taxi and were temporary.
6. When the matter was called for disposal, ld. counsel submits that the appellant will be able to justify the facts by producing the permanent registration of the vehicle as a taxi and hence seeks remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority. We find that the question of whether the vehicles were registered as taxi or not, which is a question of fact, which needs to be addressed by the adjudicating authority by appreciating the evidences which may be produced by the appellant. In view of this, Appeal no. E/2095/05 which is filed against Order-in-Appeal no. P-I/123/2005 dated 25.02.2005 is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
7. We put on record that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
8. All three appeals are disposed of as indicated hereinabove.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR
- 3 -
E/2094-2096/05