Commissioner Of Ce & Service Tax vs M/S Reward Construction Pvt. Ltd

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

COURT No. I

Appeal No. ST/475, 476, 486/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 52/P-III/ST/COMMR/2011-12 dated 21.03.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Pune III)

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 : No 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?

M/s Reward Construction Pvt. Ltd.

(in appeal No. 475, 476/12)

Commissioner of CE & Service Tax, Pune III (in appeal No.486/12)

Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of CE & Service Tax, Pune III (in appeal No. 475, 476/12)

M/s Reward Construction Pvt. Ltd.

(in appeal No.486/12) Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for respondent

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

Date of Hearing: 14.07.2015 Date of Decision: 14.07.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

All these three appeals are filed by the assessee as well as by Revenue against the same order-in-original. Since all these are on identical set of question they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The main grievance of the learned Counsel is that the adjudicating authority has not considered their submission in correct perspective as recorded; as to free issue of material, reversal of CENVAT Credit on availment of capital goods amount and payment received and there being discharge of service tax, CENVAT Credit and confirmation of demand of amount equivalent to denial of composition scheme due to reason of availment of CENVAT Credit on capital goods and amounts recovered from the customers and not paid. It was brought to our notice that the adjudicating authority has recorded in his findings that appellant has not produced various documents which were infact produced.

4. Learned D.R submits that in a few cases appellant has not produced documents before the adjudicating authority while adjudicating authority has considered the reply to the show-cause notice and representation made before him.

5. On deeper perusal of the impugned order we do find that the claim of the appellant before the adjudicating authority was free of issue of material cannot be considered for inclusion in value for discharging service tax liability and had produced some documents. In our view the claim of the appellant regarding non-avilment of CENVAT Credit by reversing the amount availed also needs to be appreciated by the lower authority, a law which has been settled in various cases. In short, we find that the entire issue needs to be gone into detail by the adjudicating authority by appreciating various points raised by the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice as well as various submissions made by them during personal hearing. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following principles of natural justice. Appeal filed by Revenue is also allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the entire issue.

6. Appeal disposed of as indicated herein above.

(Dictated in Court)

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

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 4