Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Peekay Steel Castings (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem on 24 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.ST/207/2009
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.17/2009-(SLM) (ST) dated 28.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Peekay Steel Castings (P) Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms.P.K.Shubalakshmi, Advocate Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 24.3.2010 Date of decision : 24.3.2010 Final Order No.____________ In this case, the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.04 has been denied to the appellants herein who had incurred freight charges for GTA service, on the ground that they had not produced originals of the declarations from transporters to the effect that they (transporters) had not availed CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods used for providing GTA service and had not availed the benefit of Notification No.12/03-ST dt. 20.6.03.
2. I heard both sides. I find that the assessees had produced photocopies of declarations to the above effect. Such photocopies have also been notarized. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have called upon the assessees to produce original declarations if he was of the view that production of photocopies was not sufficient for the purpose of the assessees claim for exemption under the notification. The assessees have produced original declarations before the Bench. In this view of the mater, the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to reconsider the issue in the light of the originals of the declarations filed by the assessees and, for this purpose, I remit the case for decision to the lower appellate authority who shall pass orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard.
3. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 2