Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Replika Press Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak on 7 October, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
Single Member Bench
Court No. 4
ST/51829/2014-ST(SM), ST/51830/2014-ST(SM), ST/51831/2014-ST(SM)
Date of hearing: 07/10/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 640-641/SVS/RTK/2013 dated 20.12.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Delhi-III Gurgaon)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
Replika Press Pvt. Ltd Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri V.P.Batra, DR
Coram: Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Technical Member
Final Order No.53900-53902/2014
PER: MANMOHAN SINGH
Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate of M/s Replika Press Pvt. Ltd appeared for hearing against the Order-in-Appeal No.640-641/SVS/RTK/2013 dated 20.12.2013 wherein the appellant filed refund claims relating to admissibility of exemption in the form of refund in respect of the service of CHA and inland haulage charges used for the export of goods. Further, it came out of facts that in respect of Inland Haulage service, the appellant had not produced bills raised by the actual service provider. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals)s Order relating to Inland haulage service has been passed without discussing the issue in his Order-In-Appeal.
2. For ready reference, amount involved issue wise are given below:-
Appeal No. 1. ST/51829/2014
2. ST/51830/2014
3. ST/51831/2014
Total Refund
Refund in respect of Customs House Agent Service
Refund in respect of Inland Haulage Service
Rs.36,137/-
Rs.3,944/-
Rs.32,193/-
Rs.1,50,111/-
Rs.22,495/-
Rs.1,27,616/-
Rs.1,51,964/-
Rs.22,305/-
Rs.1,29,659/-
3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that one of the director Shri Praveen Ahuja in the company M/s Titanic Ocean Service Pvt. Ltd is holding CHA licence M/s Titanic Ocean Services Pvt. Ltd is registered as CHA Company. The name of CHA mentioned in shipping bills is Praveen Ahuja who is the promoter of the said CHA Company. CHA licence has been issued in the name of individual and the said individual is doing business in the name of his company. Therefore the name of the person mentioned in the shipping bills and in the invoices is one and the same. He also submitted that they were not heard on merit and natural justice provisions were not complied with.
4. Regarding Inland Haulage service, the appellant submitted that M/s Titanic Ocean Service Pvt. Ltd has provided the service and they submitted the invoices for availment of credit. Department proposed to reject the claims only on the ground that the PAN numbers mentioned on these documents were apparently different and two different PAN based registration numbers have been mentioned in these documents. It was contended that Department should have issued only one PAN registration number. It was only a technical issue. Substantive issue regarding provision of service has been ignored. He submitted that Commissioner (Appeals)s order not discussing and analyzing the issue needs re-examination in denovo adjudication.
5. On the other hand ld. DR pointed out that once two registration numbers were granted resulting in two PAN registrations, appellant should have taken the matter with concerned authority for rectification. Regarding Inland Haulage Service, he agreed with the proposal of appellant that proper course was to send it back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for denovo adjudication. Further DR submitted that it was not one time issue being recurring in nature, requires rectification in the certificates at the Commissioners level.
6. Heard both sides and examined the records.
7. I find no force in the contention of the appellant that process of natural justice has not been followed as he was not heard on merit. However mearly two registration numbers issued to the appellant could not be a ground for rejection of Cenvat credit. I find force for grant of credit on CHA service and accept the appeal subject to rectification in the licence/registration certificate issued in this regard. However, department is directed to examine the matter to sort out the issue of two pan-based registration numbers as the issue is recurring in nature.
8. Regarding Inland Haulage service, matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a appropriate order after analyzing the issue in its proper context and hearing both sides in this regard. Appellant are also directed to produce relevant documents before Commissioner (Appeals) for doing needful. Denovo proceedings should be completed within three months.
9. In view of above, appeal is partly allowed in respect of availment of credit CHA service as per finding above. In respect of the remaining issue relating to availability of credit on Inland Haulage Service, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for doing needful.
.
10. Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (MANMOHAN SINGH) Member (Technical) K. Gupta 5