Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2007 CE dated 06/03/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Kudremukh, Chickmagalur District Appellant(s) Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore 5th Floor, Trade Centre, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore - 575 003 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/03/2015 Date of Decision: 20/03/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20820 / 2015

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. The matter has been coming up frequently before the Tribunal and today it is the fifth time. On the last four occasions nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant nor was there any request for adjournment and today also the situation is same. Therefore the appeal is taken up for final decision.

2. Heard the learned AR. He submits that the appellant has claimed refund on the ground that the unit in Chickmagalur is closed. However the refund claim has been denied on the ground that documents are in the name of IBP Company Ltd. Kolkatta and appellants have not explained how the credit of service tax was taken by them when the invoices are in the name of IBP Company Ltd. Kolkatta.

3. I have considered the submissions. In the appeal memorandum appellants have submitted that M/s. IBP Company Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s. IOCL and therefore all the rights and obligations got transferred to them. It was submitted that the goods were supplied to IOCL which is a 100% EOU and therefore the service tax credit could not be utilized and claimed as refund. In the table given along with memorandum of appeal, it is the claim of the appellant that service tax paid by the IBP Kolkatta was distributed to their unit in Chickmaglur and they have also produced documents in support of this submission with the table. Apparently these documents have not been considered by the lower authorities. Whether these documents were produced before the lower authorities is also not forthcoming. Learned Commissioner has observed that the documents are not in the name of the refund claimant and the obvious conclusion is that these documents were not seen. It is felt that the refund claims will have to be considered afresh by the original adjudicating authority and therefore the matter is required to be remanded.

4. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority. Since the appellants have not pursued the appeal also before the Tribunal and there is no clarity as to why they did not do so, it is felt that after waiting for 6 months, the matter may be treated as closed by the original adjudicating authority if the appellant does not approach the original authority again. The original authority is requested to address a letter to the appellant and give an opportunity to submit the details.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss