Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Automax Engineers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. ST/S/96170/13-Mum APPEAL No. ST/87568/13-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. V2A(ST)70/2013 dated 13.3.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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?
====================================================== Automax Engineers Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent Appearance: Shri Mukesh Chandiwal, C.A., for appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 8.4.2014 Date of Decision: 8.4.2014 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.14,18,682/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicant provided manpower recruitment and supply service.
3. The contention of the applicant is that the applicants are undertaking the job work of wheel assembly received from their principal and the applicants are receiving the consideration amount per piece. The wheel assemblies were returned to the principal. The applicants are not providing any manpower to the principal rather undertaking job work. The applicants now produced the copy of work order. The contention is that in these circumstances, the demand is not sustainable.
4. The Revenue submitted that when the show cause notice was issued to the applicant, the applicant vide letter dated 22.2.2008 replied and explained their activity. The adjudicating authority subsequently asked the applicant to submit the supporting documents like copy of agreement and the records maintained by the applicant for job work activity. The applicant had not responded to the queries raised by the adjudicating authority and not appeared before the adjudicating authority. Against the adjudication order, the applicant filed appeal and before the Commissioner (Appeals) also, the applicant had not appeared. In these circumstances, as the applicant has not produced any evidence in support of their claim, the demand is rightly made.
5. we find that the applicant had not appeared before the adjudicating authority nor produced any records as required by the adjudicating authority to show that the applicants are undertaking the job work and not supplying manpower to the principal. Even the applicants had not produced the copy of the work order. Similarly the applicant had not appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) also. Now before us they produced the copy of the work order to show that the applicants are undertaking the job work and not providing any manpower supply service. In these circumstances, we find the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority afresh. However, we find that as the applicant had not co-operated with the adjudicating authority nor appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the applicants are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost. The cost is to be deposited with the jurisdictional authorities. Subject to payment of the above cost, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The appellant will appear before the adjudicating authority along with the proof of deposit of the above mentioned cost and with reply supported with documents on 19.6.2014 and thereafter the adjudicating authority will decide in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 4