Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Exicom Tele Systems Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 May, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III	

	

Excise  Appeal No. 50445  of  2014-EX [SM] 

Excise  Stay Application No. 50554  of  2014-EX [SM] 



 [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal  No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-135-13-14  dated 19.09.2013 passed   by Commissioner of  Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]



For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)



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? 


No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


     Seen  
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
        Yes
	

M/s.   Exicom Tele Systems   Ltd.                          	  Appellants              

	

 Vs.	



Commissioner of  Central Excise	                       Respondent,  

& Service Tax, Chandigarh I Appearance:

None for the Appellants Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing/ Decision : 6.05.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 51996 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as I find that service tax Cenvat credit in respect of courier service and transit insurance stand denied by the lower authorities on the ground that appellants have not produced any evidence to show that sales are on FOR basis.

2. The appellants contention is that such requisite purchase orders were placed before Commissioner (Appeals) which stand totally ignored by him. Inasmuch as the issue relates to the factual position, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, after examining the requisite documentary evidence produced by the appellant. The issue of limitation, strongly contended by the appellant, would also be reconsidered by him in the light of available evidence.

3. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.


           (Dictated   and  pronounced in the open Court  )                 

      

                                                                    

                                                                                ( Archana Wadhwa )        							           	Member(Judicial)

ss







??



??



??



??









2