Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ...

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SB (7)/7/MI/2010 dated 02.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I)

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?

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 18.03.2015 Date of decision : 18.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB (7)/7/MI/2010 dated 02.02.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services for transfer of goods to sister concern of the appellant.

4. The ld. counsel submits that identical issue for the earlier period came up before the Division bench in Appeal no. E/412 & 486/10. Its her submission that the bench had remanded matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh in view of the Circular no. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007. She would also produce before me the certificate of the Chartered Accountant as to the inclusion of the freight charges in the valuation of the goods transferred to sister concern, but the counsel fairly submits that this certificate was not produced before the lower authorities. It is her submission that the earlier matter which was remanded by the Tribunal is still pending adjudication.

5. After considering the submission made by the ld. DR, I find the issue needs reconsideration as I find from the Division bench order no. A/253-254/2011/EB/C-II dated 14.03.2011, the matter has been remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for examining as to whether the transportation cost has been included in the assessable value by the appellant in compliance with the Board circular cited hereinabove. If an identical issue has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority and the Chartered Accountant certificate has been produced before the Tribunal for the first time, I find the issue needs reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all issues open, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to be considered along with the earlier remanded matter. Needless to state that the Adjudicating Authority should follow the principles of natural justice before coming to a conclusion.

7. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3