Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Privi Organics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 4 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.ST/85165,85166/13-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/606 & 607/RGD/2012 dated 28/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Privi Organics Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent Appearance: Shri Raymond George Advocate for Appellant Shri S.R. Nair. Examiner (AR), for Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 04/09/2015 Date of Decision : 04/09/2015 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
These appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is the same and in respect of very same assessee.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on appellants under the category of Goods Transport Agency Services. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellants are liable to discharge the service tax liability as they had shown in their balance sheet an amount as freight paid, while it is the case of assessee that the amount indicated in the balance sheet as freight charges are actually paid to GTA, supplier of the goods and of an amount less than 750 rupee. It is the claim of the learned counsel that they had also raised these three points not considered as also Chartered Accountant certificate was not appreciated by the lower authorities.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the first appellate authority has recorded that the adjudicating authority and as well as the Additional Commissioner indicated that appellants did not produce any evidences justifying their claim. Learned counsels argument is that the evidences were produced and also produced before the Tribunal, may not carrying the issue any further as in my view, verification of the documents has to be done by the adjudicating authority. In my considered view, the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority by looking into the evidences claimed to be in support of the appellants. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. Appellants are directed to produce all evidences in support of their claim before the adjudicating authority.
5. Appeals allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) akp 1 3 APPEAL No.ST/85165/13-Mum