Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Automark Inds. (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce And Custom, Nagpur on 27 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. C/483/10 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/103/NGP/2010 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Automark Inds. (I) Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellants
Versus
CCE and Custom, Nagpur
Respondents
Appearance Shri H.G. Dharmadhikar, Advocate for Appellants Shri N.A. Sayyad, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 27.09.10 Date of Decision : 27.09.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal Today the appeal is listed for admission.
2. I have gone through the appeal memo and the impugned order. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant has failed to submit the required documents before the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification to establish whether the appellant has discharged their duty that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable or not. The appellant submits that they have submitted the required documents on 31.03.2010 but the Commissioner (A) has passed the order on 25.03.2010. Hence, these documents could not be verified by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Considering the fact that the impugned order itself says that the appellant has not produced the required documents, after admitting the appeal, I have decided to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides.
5. As discussed above, the impugned order is passed without verifying the documents filed by the appellant in support of their claim. Therefore, I remand back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the documents, thereafter to pass order accordingly after an opportunity of hearing being given to the appellants.
6. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2