Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Ms Anoli Patwa (Adv.) on 11 July, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad COURT Appeal No. : E/10648/2014 Application No. : E/Stay/1152/2014 Arising out of : OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-630-2013-14 dated 20.1.2014 Passed by : The Commissioner (A), CCE&ST, Vadodara I For approval and signature : Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 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 Appellant (s) : M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd Represented by : Ms Anoli Patwa (Adv.) Respondent (s) : CCE&ST., Vadodara I
Represented by : Shi K J Kinariwala (AR) CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing /Decision : 11/7/2014 ORDER No. A/11410/2014 dtd 11/7/2014 Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur, This stay application and appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-630-2013-14 dt 20.1.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara under which appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by Commissioner (A) for non-compliance of a pre-deposit order of Rs 50,000/- with respect to total demand of Rs 95,029/- interest and penalties.
2. Ms Anoli Patwa (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue on merit is that appellant has taken certain cenvat credit of inputs used in the appellants in-house laboratory for comparing the quality of the pharmaceutical products manufactured by the appellant. It was her case that such tests are essential for maintaining the quality and standards of the manufactured product. She also relies upon the following case laws :
i) Tata Engg & Locomotive Co Ltd vs CCE., Pune 2010(256)ELT.56(Bom.)
ii) CCE, Hyderabad vs Gulf Oil Corpn Ltd 2006(201)ELT.433(Tri.Bang.)
iii) Dr Reddys Labs Ltd vs CCE&C Vishakapatanam 2008(232)ELT.819 (Tri.Bang)
iv) CCE Pune vs Excide Industries Ltd 2008(223)ELT.311 (Tri. Mumbai)
v) Concrete Products & Construction Co vs CCE 210(261)ELT.203 (Tri. Chennai)
3. Shri K J Kinariwala (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue that the case laws relied upon by the appellant was not relied upon before Commissioner (Appeals) while seeking any modification of the stay order.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. From the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co Ltd vs CCE Pune [2010(256)ELT 56 (Bom)], relied upon by the appellant, it appears that appellant has an arguable case on merits. Therefore, after allowing the stay application the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The order dtd 17/1/2014 passed by the first appellate authority is set aside and he is directed to restore the appeal to its original number in his office records and decide the issue on merits in denovo proceedings without insisting for any pre-deposit. Needless to say that appellant should be given an opportunity to explain their case before deciding the appeal in denovo proceeding. It is made clear that the Bench has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and has kept all the issues open for the first appellate authority.
5. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) swami ??
??
??
??
2