Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs Commr. Of C. Ex. & Service Tax-Rourkela on 29 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
MA (COD)-76087/17
AND
Excise Appeal No. 76817/2017
(Arising out of the Order-in-Original No.06/Commr. Audit/CEX/RKL/2017-18 dated-16/05/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, & S. Tax, Rourkela)
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax-Rourkela
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Agarwal for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT HONBLE SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing & Decision :29/11/2017 ORDER NO: F/O 78331/2017 Per Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 06/Commr. Audit/CEX/RKL/2017-18 dated-16/05/2017 dated 16/5/2017. 2. Heard Shri Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Ld. Counsel and Shri A.K. Biswas representatives of the parties.
3. The delay is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the COD application.COD is allowed.
4. with the consent of both the parties, we heard the appeals on merit.
5. Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Ld. Cunsel submits that there is apparent mistake in the order. The Commissioner has charged the duty @6% while it was applicable to 5% during the period under consideration. He also submits that the appellant has paid the full duty for the mistake in computation . The matter needs to be remanded.
6. Shri A.K. Biswas , Ld. Supdt. (A.R) on the other hand, justified the impugned order.He submits that for the mistake, the appellant has not submitted any letter /application.
7. After the rival submissions, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeal) has thoroughly examined the matter and mentioned that originally demand was for Rs.2,12,,55,012/- but after the computation in the presence of the appellant , the demand was reduced to Rs.36,54,557/- which has been deposited. It is the after thought of the Ld. Counsel to raise new issues but the fact is that the appellant never raised these points before the Lower Authorities. The ld. Counsel failed to satisfy the Bench. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Department submits that merely on request , the matter cannot be remanded. Apparently, there is no mistake in computation .
6. As a result, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is hereby sustained.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- Sd/-
(SHRI V. PADMANABHAN ) (JUSTICE DR. SATISH CHANDRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER PRESIDENT k.b/- Excise Appeal No. 76817/2017 2