Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 3 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
S.P.No.-909/2012
AND
Customs Appeal No. 229/2012
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.06/CUS/BBSR-I/2012 dated-17/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, BBSR-I)
For approval and signature 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 ?
Commr. of Central Excise, Customs &
Service Tax-BBSR-I
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri Anirudha Roy, Supdt. (A.R.)
FOR APPELLANT(S)
Sri Sanjoy Kaushal, Chief Finance Manager
FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 03/06/2014
ORDER NO.FO/A75393/2014
Per DR.D.M. MISRA
This is an application seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal No. 06/CUS/BBSR-I/2012 dated-17/05/2012 filed by the Revenue.
2. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has dealt with mainly two issues e.g. (i) admissibility of 2.5% discount as address Commission in respect of freight and demurrage charges and for levy and for levy of National calamity contingent duty (NCCD) on the basis of shore tank receipt. The Revenue in the present appeal is challenging only the issue of 2.5% discount as address Commission in respect of freight and demurrage charges. It is his contention that while allowing the said discount, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has neither verified nor scrutinized any of the documents, in support of the said claim. He fairly accepts that the respondent could be eligible to such discount, if necessary documents are produced before the appropriate authority and scrutinized. He has no objection in remanding the case to the adjudicating authority as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has already remanded the matter in relation to both the issues for re-assessment.
3. The Ld. Representative for the Respondent has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority as they are in a position to produce all the relevant documents in support of both the claims.
4. After hearing both the sides for some time, we are of the view that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Hence with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for disposal. We find that in deciding both issues, the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-assessment of the bill of entry. We are unable to understand as to how re-assessment would not include verification of the documents relating to the first issue i.e. allowing of 2.5% discount as address commission in respect of freight and demurrage charges for which the Revenue is in Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). We are of the view that the said apprehension expressed by the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no merit. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority will take into consideration all the evidences that would be produced by the respondent in relation to the amount of bill of entry afresh. In the result, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding all issues afresh taking into consideration the evidences on record. Revenues appeal is allowed by remand. S.P. disposed off as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Sd/- 27/06/14 Sd/- 26/06/14
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
k.b/-
Customs Appeal No. 229/2012
4