Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd vs Cce, Indore on 26 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-,,,,,SM Excise Appeal No.E/3297/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/195/09 dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore]. M/s. Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Indore Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.Ashutosh Upadyay, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri.P.K. Sharma, DR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing/Decision:26.03.2012 ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:________ PER: D.N.PANDA Ld. Representative for Revenue preliminarily brings out that appeal of the appellant is confined to the disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs.57,712/- as stated in para 2 of the grounds of appeal of the appellant. There is no dispute from the other-side except saying that para 1 takes care of the entire prayer to consider the cenvat credit disallowance. Reading of para 2 with para 1 of the grounds of appeal does not throw light as to whether the memorandum of appeal has complied to Rule 8 of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 Rule 8 (1) requires every Memorandum of Appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of appeal. This procedure is to enable both sides as well as the Tribunal to deal with the specific ground without anything left in dark. While making such rule, Rule 10 of the above Rules has also permitted fresh grounds of appeal that can be raised with leave of the Tribunal. Once Tribunal permits on consideration of argument by both sides, such a ground receive consideration for decision. In the present appeal what Shri Sharma ld. Representative for Revenue points out is very correct that this appeal is confined to the dispute of Rs.57,712/-. The appellant in ground No.14 of the Memorandum of appeal has craved leave to add/alter or amend any of the appeal stated in the memorandum of appeal. Looking to such a leave craved by the appellant, it was asked to the appellant whether the appellant chooses to exercise such right. The answer comes forward is no. The ultimate prayer of the appellant is to confine the appeal to the disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs.57,712/-.
2. Both sides are in dispute as to the evidence that needs consideration either to allow or reject the cenvat credit claim. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in page 6 of his order did not find evidence before him to consider the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the concurrent finding of both the authorities is that the claim of cenvat credit is to be made on the basis of evidence laid by the appellant and in absence of the same, the decision should negate the claim. At this stage, it was proposed to the appellant whether the appellant can lead evidence. Both sides agree that the matter may go back to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant confining the decision only to dispute of Rs.57,712/- by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the aforesaid limited extent to enable the appellant to lead evidence and satisfy learned Commissioner (Appeals) as to whether the appellant shall get cenvat credit on the above said amount.
3. Ld. Counsel at this stage further points out that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the matter shall also decide on limitation point in respect of aforesaid confined remand. It is left open to the authority to consider the limitation aspect, which is a point of law at his level. The authority is therefore required to decide the matter on the aforesaid limited aspect on merit in accordance with law.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita