Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sparktech Engineers

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

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/194/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/81/NSK/2010 dated 19/03/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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? ========================================

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Appellant

Vs. Sparktech Engineers Respondent Appearance:

Shri.A.B.Kulgod, Asst. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri.Venkatesh Iyer, Advocate, for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 12/02/2015 Date of Decision : 12/02/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/81/NSK/2010 dated 19/03/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the Revenue is aggrieved by the order only on the ground that the first appellate authority has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority despite there being no provisions to do so.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the first appellate authority has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue based upon the findings which have been recorded by him to the service tax liability on the respondent. We find that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as the factual material which has to be considered for computing or arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is liable for service tax liability being voluminous should be considered only by the adjudicating authority.

4. Learned Consultant also submits that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority will come to a conclusion independently untrammeled by the observations recorded by the first appellate authority.

5. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 3