Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/87224/14

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-376-13-14 dated 03/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Pune

Appearance:

Shri.L.Badrinarayan, Advocate for appellant Shri.R.K.Das, Dy. Comm. (AR), for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 15/07/2015 Date of Decision : 15/07/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-376-13-14 dated 03/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.

2. Heard both sides on the issue for some time and on perusal of records, we find that the issued needs re-consideration by the adjudicating authority.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant based upon the calculation worked out by him as to inclusion and non-inclusion of the value of exempted services rendered by the appellant in J&K.

4. We find that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority has not considered the submissions made by the appellant in respect of the exempted services which were rendered at J&K, in order to arrive the correct figure of the refund which is to be granted to the appellant. All these things needs to be considered in its correct perspective.

4.1 We also notice that the first appellate authority has recorded his findings, which does not arising in the facts of this case before the adjudicating authority. Suffice it to say that the impugned order have to be reasoned one with reference to the issued raised before the authorities, we are unable to sustain both the orders and set aside the same and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the issue afresh. We record that we are not passed any observations on the merits of the case and have left all the issues open. Needless to state that the adjudicating authority will follow the principles of natural justice before coming to a conclusion.

5. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

(Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 3