Agarwal Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 221/2013 dated 26/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax ( Appeals-II) Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Agarwal Engineering Works Plot No. A-46, Industrial Development Area, Gandhinagar, Kukatpally Hyderabad  500 018 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-IV Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad  500 001 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate World Trade Centre No.404-406, 4th Floor, South Wing, Brigade Gateway Campus No.26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore - 560 055 Karnataka For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 15/06/2015 Date of Decision: 15/06/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21425 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

The appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 10.41 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty One Thousand approximately) out of the total confirmed demand of Rs. 34,71,881/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty One only). Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order, after holding the legal point against the assessee, had remanded the matter to the lower authorities for re-quantification of the demand. In such a scenario the demand alone is bound to come down.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant clearly states that they have challenged the said order on the legal ground that Works Contract were not to be vivisected prior to 01.06.2007 and fairly agrees that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of L&T reported as [2015-TIOL-527-CESTAT-DEL-LB] has now decided the said decision against them. Further he submits that there are other smaller issues which are required to be addressed.

3. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the other smaller issues can be addressed by the original adjudicating authority to whom the matter has already been remanded for re-quantification of the duty.

4. We find favour with the above contention of the learned DR. As such after rejecting the appeal on the legal issue, in terms of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the remand already made by Commissioner (Appeals) to the original adjudicating authority would be considered as open remand for the purpose of deciding the other issues. Stay application as also appeal get disposed of in the above manner.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss