Cronimet India Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Nagpur

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. C/85401/15

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/154/14-15 dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, 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 : 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?

=====================================================

Cronimet India Metals Pvt. Ltd.

: Appellant Versus

CCE, Nagpur : Respondent

Appearance Shri Shankar Patil, Advocate : For Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Dy. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 23.06.2015 Date of Decision: 23.06.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

Heard both sides.

2. It is the contention of the appellant that in response to letter dated 23.11.2013 of the adjudicating authority, they had filed the details requisitioned on 08.10.2013, in the refund section, ICD, Ajni (Nagpur). It is further contented that with the refund application filed on 30.09.2013, they had filed original (Duplicate copy) of:- (i) Bills of Entry, (ii) TR-6 Challan, (iii) Packing list, (iv) Import invoice, (v) Bill of lading, (vi) Sales invoices under VAT, duly showing No credit of SAD available, (vii) Annexure A, B, C, S, (viii) VAT-sales tax Challans, (ix) Ledger Abstract, etc. As regards non-appearance on date fixed 21.12.2013, it is pleaded that due to lack of communication in the office, the person responsible, could not attend thereafter, by exparte order, the refund claim was rejected. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have raised doubts on submission of supporting documents on 8.10.2013 in absence of office stamp of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of refund section, and dismissed the appeal.

3. Having considered the rival contentions, I remand to the Adjudicating Authority, to pass a reasoned order after considering the evidence on record, as well as now produced by assessee/appellant. Appellant is also directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order and seek opportunity of hearing.

4. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

Sp 2