Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cst, Delhi vs M/S Magnum Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 21 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 21.9.2016
Appeal No. ST/889/2011-ST (SM)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 56/ST/DHL/2011 dated 9.3.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi)
CST, Delhi Appellant
Vs.
M/s Magnum Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri K. Poddar, AR - for the appellant None - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53716/2016 Per Ashok K. Arya :
The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi.
2. The Revenue has been represented by ld. AR Shri K. Poddar. There is none present on behalf of the Respondent i.e. M/s Magnum Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
3. Based on the grounds of appeal filed, ld. AR Shri Poddar points out that the impugned order is self contradictory and is non-speaking order; there is no correlation between the observations and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) made in the impugned order. The ld. AR says that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Respondent-assessee to produce documents for satisfying the condition of the respective notification; Commissioner (Appeals) failed to satisfy himself on the admissibility of refund claimed under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007.
4. After considering the facts on record and the submissions of the Revenue, it is apparent on the face of the record that the impugned order is self contradictory. On the one hand the impugned order directs the assessee respondent viz. Magnum Minerals Pvt. Ltd. to produce written agreements with the foreign buyers in respect of Technical Testing and analysis and Inspection and certifications services for satisfying the condition of the Notification and on the other hand, he is setting aside the impugned order-in-original giving consequential relief to the assessee-respondent. Therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh after giving fresh opportunity to the respondent for presentation of their case and thereafter issue the speaking order accordingly.
5. Considering above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed way of remand back to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh within four months of receipt of this order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) RM 1