Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Rumours

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

COURT No. I

Appeal No. E/1518/05

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 09/2004 dated 01.04.2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai IV)

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?

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai IV

Appellant Vs.

M/s. Rumours Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S.V. Nair, Supdt. (AR) for appellant None for respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing: 08.06.2016 Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against order-in-original No. 09/2004 dated 01.04.2004.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent was manufacturing readymade garments and sold the same locally to merchant exporters who in turn exported the same. It is the case of Revenue that the respondent is not eligible to the benefit of claim of export by the merchant exporter. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has come to a conclusion that except for an amount of Rs.55,11,445/- the respondent was able to justify that the goods were exported by submitting proof of export. On perusal of the show-cause notice, we find that the issue which has been raised in the show-cause notice is in respect of non-submission of proof of export as well as the eligibility to avail small scale exemption notification benefit. In the entire order-in-original the adjudicating authority has not addressed any findings in respect of the small scale industries exemption claimed by the respondent. In our view the impugned order is not a speaking one and needs to be set aside. Since the impugned order is not addressing all the allegations made in the show-cause notice and defence raised by the respondent, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh and pass an order on all the allegations raised in the show-cause notice after following the principles of natural justice.

4. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Dictated in Court)

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

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 3 Appeal No. E/1518/05