Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sree Rayalseema Green vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
AT BANGALORE.
Single Member
Court I
Date of hearing: 18.7.2013
Date of decision: 18.7.2013
Central Excise Appeals Nos. 2542 & 2543 of 2010
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2010 (T) CE dated 27.8.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur)
M/s Sree Rayalseema Green Appellant
Energy Ltd.
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Guntur.
Appearance None for appellant Mr. A. K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) for respondent CORAM : Honble Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER Nos...Dated 18.7.2013 Appellants are supplying electrical transformers to DISCOMS. On the ground that the contract had various clauses and the final prices arrived at based on the price variation clause were less than the prices adopted for the purpose of payment of Excise duty, two refund claims filed by the appellant have been rejected. Hence these appeals.
2. I find that on earlier three occasions also there was no representation but requests were made for adjournment. Today also there was a request for adjournment. I do not find any justification for granting adjournment further.
3. Heard learned Additional Commissioner (AR) on behalf of Revenue and perused the records.
4. On going through the records, according to the appeal memorandum, it has been stated by the appellant that rejection of the refund claims is on the ground that Chartered Accountants certificate could not be accepted since the certificate was given on an improper appreciation of the facts. It has been submitted that the appellant realised the mistake after receiving the impugned order and accordingly, they got fresh certificate from the Chartered Accountant after rectifying the mistake which was a clerical error on the part of the issuing authority. As the appellants have admitted that the Chartered Accountants certificate produced by them earlier was wrong and now they have obtained a fresh certificate after rectifying the mistake, it would be appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration in the light of certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Learned AR has no objection in the course of this action.
5. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the refund claims. All issues are kept open.
6. Both the appeals are disposed of as above.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court) (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (Technical) /vc/