Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln.No.ST/S/05/12 APPEAL No.ST/02/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.58/BR-58/ST/Th-I/2011 dated 30/09/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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? ========================================
Bharti Airtel Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Thane Appearance: Shri.Ashish Philip, Advocate for appellant Shri.A.K. Prabhakar, Supdt. (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 15/05/2012 Date of Decision : 15/05/2012 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal
1. The applicants have filed an appeal along with an application for stay against the impugned order denying the inputs service credit taken by them during the period 2003-2004 on account of non filing of the prescribed proforma as per Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved is in a narrow compass; therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and taken up the appeal for final disposal.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that they have filed ST-3 return within time but admittedly they did not file the annexure to ST-3 returns as prescribed under Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002. He further submits that now they have filed the returns as per the Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, on 20/10/2011 before the adjudicating authority; therefore, the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconciliation and verification and to pass an appropriate order thereafter.
4. We have gone through the impugned order wherein demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not followed the procedure as per Rule 5 (4) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and, therefore, demand has been confirmed. In the absence of returns, details was not filed by the appellant as per the said rule. Now the appellant has filed the required details as per Rule 5 (4) ibid; therefore, it needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. In view of these observations, we remand back the matter to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the details filed by the appellant and thereafter to pass the order in accordance with the law.
5. It will be preferred to adjudicating authority shall consider the submissions of the appellant and pass the order within three months of the communication of this order.
6. Appeal as well as stay application are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3