Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik vs British Scaffolding International Ltd

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/139/NSK/09 dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

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 Yes of the Order?

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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Appellant

Vs.

British Scaffolding International Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the appellant Shri Kadim Dangra, AVP- Operation for the respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 16.03.2015 Date of decision : 16.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/139/NSK/09 dated 31.12.2009.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. On perusal of the records, I find that the issue lies in a narrow compass inasmuch as revenue is aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority only on the ground that the matter has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority while the powers to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority are curtailed.

4. On perusal of the records, I do find that the first appellate authority has gone in detail of the refund claim filed by the assessee and rejected the findings by the Adjudicating Authority. After considering the refund claim in detail, the first appellate authority has remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to quantify the amount by verification of the bills of the CHA and other documents. This finding is recorded by the first appellate authority in para 11 and 12.

5. In my considered view, the first appellate authority should have called for all the records and verified the same and sanctioned the refund to the assessee.

6. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice and call for documents from the assessee and after verifying the assessees claim should pass appropriate order.

7. I record that I have not made any observation on the merits of the case and has kept all the issues open. The Cross objection is also disposed of.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3