Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shah Alloys Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad-Iii on 4 January, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/12749/2014 (Arising out of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-015-14-15 dated 29/04/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-III) M/s Shah Alloys Ltd : Appellant (s) Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad-iii : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent (s): Ms. Nitina Nagori, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 04.01.2017 ORDER No. A/10010 / 2017 dated 04.01.2017 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIA No. AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-015-14-15 dated 29/04/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-Ahmedabad-III.
3. The Ld. Advocate Shri Paritosh Gupta for the appellant submits that they have availed CENVAT credit on various input services. Alleging that the said services are not input services , demand notice was issued, which on adjudication was confirmed with equal penalty. On Appeal the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) allowed credit on certain services, however, rejected their Appeal relating to credit availed on service viz. brokerage, Membership fees, Hospitality Expenses, Travel Agent, Postage, Conveyance Office expenses, and stationery and printing observing that the appellant had not specifically disputed the admissibility of credit on these services.
4. Assailing the said observation, the Ld. Advocate referring to the appeal memo before the Ld. Commr(A), particularly ground no. (iii), submitted that the Appellant had specifically disputed denial of the credit on these services. He submits that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the same in the light of the observation made by him in relation to other services.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of CENVAT credit of these services solely and the ground that the Appellant had not disputed the denial of credit on these services, an observation proved to be incorrect by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. Since, the admissibility of credit on these services has not been considered, by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), therefore, the matter is remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
2