Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. B.H.P.V Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 21 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/660-691/2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 48 to 79/2008 (V-I) CE dated 27/05/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), VISAKHAPATNAM-I.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 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? 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. B.H.P.V LTD. NATAYYAPALEM (PO) VISAKHAPATNAM Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None G.R. KUMAR & CO.
NO.9, MERRY LIFE APPARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, A.P VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017 ANDHRA PRADESH For the Appellant Mr. Ajay Saxena, Commissioner (A) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 21/09/2015 Date of Decision: 21/09/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21947-21977 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same order of the Commissioner (A).
2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of heavy machinery as also for erection and installation of the same at the customers premises. A dispute has arisen about the assessable value of the said goods. Revenue was of the view that certain charges received by the appellant from their customers were to form a part of the assessable value of the machinery in question but assessees contention was that they were not relating to manufacturing activity and as such, no connection with the cost of the machinery.
2.1 When the matter reached Commissioner (A), he partly remanded the matter to the lower authorities for deciding afresh on certain charges and partly confirmed against the assessee on the ground that they have not been able to establish by production of evidence that these charges are not relatable to the manufacturing activity.
3. At this stage, both sides agree that the matter should go back to the original adjudicating authority for decision along with earlier remanded matters and to pass a consolidated order by re-adjudicating on each and every point. Learned advocate informs us that the earlier remanded matter is still pending before the original adjudicating authority.
4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh along with other remanded matters, in the light of the law declared by various decisions as also in the light of the evidence which the appellant would produce before him. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced in open court) ASHOK K ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3