Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 24 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. APPEAL NO. E/3308/01 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SDK(1523)132/M-I/2001 dt.31.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai. For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : 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 : of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-I Respondent Appearance Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.G. Dewalwar, Authorized Representative (SDR) CORAM:
Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of decision 24/1/08 ORDER NO.................................................... Per : Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SDK(1523)132/M-I/2001 dt. 31.7.2001 vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original that rejected the refund claim made by the appellant.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order-in-original has held that the appellants have not produced papers relating to the refund claim and the documentary evidence that they have paid the amount. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel that they will try to produce the documents before the lower authority. We find that the refund claim as filed by the appellant, was rejected by the revenue only on the ground of non-production of the documentary evidence. If the appellant is able to produce documentary evidence the amounts are paid them, revenue can consider the issue afresh, as the evidence is to be appreciated by the adjudicating authority.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh, after considering the evidences, that may be produced by the appellant and the adjudicating authority will also grant an opportunity of personal hearing. We remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority keeping all the issues open. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(K.K.Agarwal) Member (Technical) (M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 2