Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Matrix Laboratories Ltd vs Cce, Hyderabad on 18 July, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing:18/07/2012
Date of decision:18/07/2012
Application No.E/Stay/1356/2011;
Appeal No.E/2087/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.49/2011(H-I)CE dt. 19/05/2011 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals), Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Matrix Laboratories Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Hyderabad
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. G. Venkat Rao, Authorised representative for the appellant.
Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] The application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues. On a perusal of the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal.
2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dt. 18/06/2009 which invoked the extended period of limitation, the original authority had disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs.14,85,488/- and ordered its recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, also demanded interest thereon under the same Rule read with Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed penalty equal to duty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) and the latter directed the former to predeposit 50% of the duty amount, which was not predeposited within the stipulated period. Having found no evidence of predeposit, the appellate authority dismissed the assessees appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Hence the present appeal of the assessee.
3. The authorized representative of the appellant-company submits that the entire amount of CENVAT credit has been reversed, albeit under protest, on 15/12/2011 and, therefore, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the assessees appeal (filed against the Order-in-Original) on merits. In this connection, a copy of a letter dt. 15/12/2011 addressed to the Central Excise Range Superintendent intimating the above reversal of CENVAT credit is also being produced. This letter is accompanied by an excerpt from RG23A Part-II Register for December, 2011 which indicates reversal of the aforesaid amount of CENVAT credit. The above claim of the appellant can be verified at the lower appellate level. At present, there is no dispute regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit of Rs.14,85,488/-. In this scenario, we set aside the impugned order to enable the learned Commissioner(Appeals) to deal with the assessees appeal filed against the Order-in-Original, on its merits. Therefore, we allow the present appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner(Appeals) to deal with the said appeal of the assessee on its merits without insisting on any predeposit and pass a speaking order on all the relevant issues after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4