Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Cce, Belgaum on 1 February, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - SMB
Court I
Date of Hearing:01/02/2013
Date of decision:01/02/2013
Application No.E/Stay/561/2012
Appeal No.E/863/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.10/2012 dt. 04/01/2012
passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Belgaum
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. M.A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues which include an amount of Rs.2,78,095/- denied as CENVAT credit to them for the period from July, 2009 to March, 2010. After hearing both sides, I have found this case fit for summary remand to the original authority. Hence, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal for final disposal.
2. The CENVAT credit in question was taken on structural materials such as HR coils, MS angles, channels, plates, flats etc. which were claimed to be capital goods defined under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Department issued a show-cause notice to the appellant stating that the said goods, in the original form in which they were received in the factory, were neither machinery/equipment to qualify as capital goods nor components/accessories/parts of any such machinery/equipment. The show-cause notice also alleged that the said structural materials did not qualify to be inputs either. These allegations were denied by the party and the Departments proposal to deny CENVAT credit on the said structural materials was contested. The original authority, it appears, deputed the Range Officer to the appellants factory for inspection and report. On the basis of the Range Officers verification report, the original authority held that the structural materials would neither qualify to be capital goods defined under Rule 2(a) nor to be inputs defined under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It also relied on Tribunals Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010(253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB)]. In the result, its decision turned out adverse to the assessee. Aggrieved, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals), wherein a specific grievance was, inter alia, raised by them. This grievance was to the effect that no copy of the Range Officers verification report had been supplied to them. I have perused the impugned order carefully but have not come across a single reference to the Range Officers verification report or to the grievance raised by the assessee in relation thereto. In other words, the assessees plea of negation of natural justice was not heeded by the Commissioner(Appeals). These facts and circumstances are enough for this Tribunal to set aside both the orders.
3. The original authority was acting in violation of the principles of natural justice when it obtained a verification report from the Range Officer behind the back of the assessee and relied on it to decide the case against them. When the appellate authority chose not to entertain the assessees grievance of violation of natural justice, he was virtually encouraging breach of natural justice. In the circumstances, without further commenting on the conduct of the lower authorities, I set aside their orders and allow this appeal by way of remand with a direction to the original authority to supply a copy of the verification report to the assessee and re-adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. The stay application also stands disposed of.
( Pronounced and dictated in open court ) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4