Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 October, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21873 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/22242/2014 in ST/22035/2014-SM Appeal(s) Involved: ST/22035/2014-SM [Arising out of OIA No.58-2014 dated 26/02/2014 passed by Commisioner Of Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II( Appeal) ] NTT Data Global Delivery Services Ltd Erstwhile Known As Ntt Data India Enterprises Application Services Pvt Ltd 1 Labs Centre No.5, Plot No.18, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy, HYDERABAD - 500081 AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-ii L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Mihir Mehta, Advocate For the appellant Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 10/10/2014 Date of Decision: 10/10/2014 Order Per : S.K. MOHANTY The appellant has filed the appeal along with stay petition against the impugned order dt. 26/02/2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Hyderabad, wherein the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of predeposit as ordered vide Stay Order dt. 04/02/2014.
2. The issue involved in the present case is denial of CENVAT credit taken by the appellant during the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2011 in respect of the taxable service i.e. rent-a-cab service. The submissions of the appellant are that the said taxable service has been used for pick up and drop of employees to office and as such, to be termed as input service as per the definition contained in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant also submitted a C.A. certificate to the effect that the employees of the company have used the cab facilities only for pick up and drop from office to home. However the said certificate has not been considered by the lower authority while passing the impugned order. The learned advocate further submitted that in respect of service tax demand confirmed in the adjudication order, the appellant had already paid an amount of Rs.12,73,304/- in the month of February 2013, the fact of which has been accepted in the impugned order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. I find that the appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of predeposit. It is an admitted fact that the merits of the case have not been decided in the said impugned order. Therefore in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) for passing a reasoned and speaking order preferably within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say that the appellant should be given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja.
3