Gammon India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

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

COURT No. I

Application No. ST/EH/94381/15 in Appeal No. ST/90119

Gammon India Ltd. Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Thane II 

Application No. ST/EH/94594/15 in Appeal No. ST/90119

Commissioner of Central Excise, Applicant Thane II

Vs.

Gammon India Ltd. Respondent

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 38/AC/COMMR/Th-II/ST/2014 dated 23.09.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?

Appearance:

Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for assessee Shri S.V. Nair, Supdt. AR), for Revenue

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 24.08.2015 Date of Decision: 24.08.2015

ORDER NO

Per : M.V. Ravindran These applications are filed by Revenue as well as the assessee for out-of-turn hearing of Appeal No.ST/90119/14.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. We find that the issue lies in a narrow compass, accordingly we allow the applications for out-of-turn hearing of the appeal and take up the appeal itself for disposal.

4. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the works contract awarded to the appellant for execution of work at Jaigarh Port and at Mumbai Port. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the adjudicating authority has not considered the fact that Jaigarh Port as well as Mumbai Port where appellants have constructed new ports may be covered under Notification No. 25/2007-ST. He would submit that the appellant had taken this specific plea before the adjudicating authority.

4.1 On perusal of the records we do find that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings on the specific plea taken by the appellant before him. In our view the benefit of Notification No.25/2007-ST goes to the root of the matter hence it should have been addressed by the adjudicating authority after considering all the issues and the evidences produced by the appellant. We find that the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly 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 who will reconsider the issue after following the principles of natural justice.

4.2 Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

??

??

??

??

3 ST/90119/14