Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Karur Kcp Packaging S Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Trichy on 18 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI E/172/2009 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 07/2009 dated 22.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Trichy). For approval and signature Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member M/s. Karur KCP Packagings Pvt. Ltd. : Applicant Vs. CCE, Trichy : Respondent
CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Appearance Shri Ramesh Ananthan, Adv., for the applicants Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the respondent Date of hearing : 18.06.10 Date of decision : 18.06.10 Final ORDER No._____________ Heard both sides. Shri Ramesh Anandan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants challenges the impugned Order in Appeal mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he states that out of the entire amount of Rs.99,439/- involved in this appeal, an amount of Rs. 40,774/- relates to denial of credit not accepting debit notes but the lower appellate authority has not dealt with this issue at all. Secondly, he states that the lower appellate authority has held the Boards Circular dated 23.08.07 to be only prospective in its application whereas, there is no reason to consider the circular to be only prospective when it is clarifying the position of law as it existed from the beginning.
2. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri C. Rangaraju. He fairly agrees that the lower appellate authority has not dealt with the issue relating to credit in respect of debit notes and as such he has no objection to the remand of the case to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision. As regards the remaining portion is concerned, he states that the lower appellate authority has denied the credit prior to 23.08.07, which is the date of the cited circular. The services included are C&F services, CHA services, DTA services and Courier charges etc. He further states that in respect of some of the services, the matter is before the higher judicial forum, for example: in respect of Outward Transport service, the matter is pending before the Honble Karnataka High Court, which has granted stay on the order of the Larger Bench in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2009 (15) STR 23.
3. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the submissions as well as the case records, I am of the view that the matter requires to be re-decided by the lower appellate authority as he has not dealt with all aspects of the case. Hence, with the consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision. All the issues are kept open. He shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 3