Aker Contracting Fp Asa vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 25-26/2014-V-II-Cus. dated 05/06/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order, having been passed against a person other than the party that was the proper assessee, cannot stand; where proceedings below were concluded in the name of a wrong entity, the appellate authority will set aside the order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in the name of the correct assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 25-26/2014-V-II-Cus. dated 05/06/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, VISAKHAPATNAM-I (Appeal).]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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
Aker Contracting FP ASA Power Gas House, 117, Vidyanari Marg, Kalina MUMBAI - 400098 MH Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Sushant Murthy, Advocate PDS LEGAL 14, MITTAL CHAMBERS, 1ST FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 For the Appellant
Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 11/09/2015
Date of Decision: 11/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21910-21911 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposits, we proceed to decide the appeals itself with the consent of both sides.
2. It is seen that appeals were filed by M/s. Aker Installation FA ASA whereas the original adjudicating authority passed an order in the name of M/s. Aker Contracting FA ASA. Inasmuch as the Order-in-Original was in the name of the assessee, they challenged the same before Commissioner (A), who also passed an order against them in their own name.
3. As such, it is seen that the entire proceedings below were wrongly concluded in the name of present assessee, whereas the same were required to be passed in the name of M/s. Aker Installation FA ASA. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for re-adjudicating the case in the name of the proper assessee. Stay petitions as also appeals gets disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv
3 1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free