Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cce, Puducherry on 2 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/S/41550/2013 and E/41795/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20/2013 (C) dated 30.5.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
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 Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Puducherry Respondent
Appearance Shri K.S. Jain, Managing Director for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 02.07.2014 Date of Decision: 02.07.2014 Final Order No. 40366/2014 Per P.K. Das After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal may be taken up for disposal at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, after disposing the stay application, we proceed to decide the appeal.
2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the demand was raised on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the proof of export. The adjudicating authority observed that regarding the proof of export for consignment under ARE-1 No. 23/2010-11 dated 8.3.2011, the shipping bill is not readable and for ARE-1 No.1/2011-12, the shipping bill copy was not submitted. It is also observed that Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) did not correlate with the instant exports.
3. The learned consultant fairly submits that they could not produce the shipping bills as there was a fire accident in the CHAs office. He further submits that the copy of the shipping bill has already been filed before this Tribunal. Regarding the FIRC, he submits that full payment was received in advance and therefore there is no invoice no. in the certificate. It is contended that they have placed the correlating evidence of the FIRC before this Tribunal. It is also submitted that they have obtained legible copy of the shipping bill and have filed before the Tribunal. The learned AR for Revenue submits that none of the documents were attested by the appellant. In this context, the learned consultant undertakes to attest all the documents.
4. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the appellant could not produce the documents before the lower authority and they are available now. In our considered view, the appellant shall be given an opportunity to produce the documents before the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after considering all the documents as contended by the learned consultant. It is directed that the appellant shall cooperate with the adjudicating authority during the denovo adjudication. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex
3