Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Basf India Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 August, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE COURT - I Application Involved: E/Stay/25103/2013 in E/25133/2013-SM Appeal Involved: E/25133/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2012 dt 04/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] M/s. BASF India Ltd. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore Respondent
Appearance:
Mr L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr R. Gurunathan, Additional Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 08/08/2013 Date of Decision: 08/08/2013 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY , TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 25820 / 2013 Order per. B.S.V.MURTHY Heard both sides for some time and both sides agree that the matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority since there is no proper appreciation of the facts in the show-cause notice as well as by the lower authorities during the adjudication process. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeal itself is taken up for final decision.
2. It is noticed from para 9 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that he has taken a view that credit of service tax pertaining to construction of motor cycle parking shed, parking area, storm water drain and excavation work for raw water reservoir, civil work or administration block is not admissible. Further the learned advocate submits that what was in dispute is only lorry parking area and other issues were not at all there. Further he also submits that in the show-cause notice in the table in paragraph 5, the names of the agencies who undertaken the work is also wrong. For example, the Coastal Housing, Aqua Technologies have undertaken the work of water storage tank whereas service provider involved in construction of lorry parking area is P J Corporation. It was also submitted that this fact was brought to the notice of original adjudicating authority also but there are no observations in this regard.
3. From the above it can be seen that both the authorities below have not gone into dispute about the fact raised by the appellants. It is made clear that whatever credits have been allowed by the lower authorities will not be reconsidered at the time of fresh adjudication. The disputed items on which there is no finding and the items on which there is a wrong finding and where the credits have been denied only will be considered by the lower authorities in the de novo proceedings. Needless to say the lower authority shall give reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case before the process is completed.
(Order Pronounced and Dictated in Open Court) B.S.V.MURTHY (TECHNICAL MEMBER) iss