M/S. Aar Kay Forge P. Ltd vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iv

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 214/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2013 dated: 05.02.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals) Delhi-IV]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Aar Kay Forge P. Ltd. ...Appellant

M/s. Aar Kay Forge P. Ltd.

M/s. Aar Kay Forge P. Ltd.

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. N. L. Jangir, (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 21.07.2015

Final Order No. 53269-53271 /2015_

Per S.K. Mohanty:

These appeals are directed against the impugned orders dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Faridabad, upholding rejection of refund claim by the Original Authority. While rejecting the refund claim, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide paragraph 5.1 in the impugned order, has held as follows:

5.1 I note that the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the above refund claim on the following two counts:-

(i) The service tax paid on Terminal Handling Services had been rejected on appellants own request vide their letter dated 14.09.2012, as they could not provide the relevant supporting bills for Terminal Handling charges (S. No. 1 to 121 of the table above).

(ii) The appellants could not provide the payment particulars of the service tax to the service providers in the case of invoices at serial numbers 22 to 25 of the table above.

2. From the above observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that refund claim on Terminal Handling Service has been rejected on the ground that the appellant itself has requested for rejecting the same. However, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant drew attention of the Bench to the Invoice appearing at page 43 in the appeal Paper Book, wherein the invoice No. 3003053 dated 28.01.2011 clearly shows that cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant on the terminal handling charges. Ld. Advocate submits that the fact regarding non-eligibility of cenvat credit to terminal handling charges has never been informed by the appellant to either of the authorities below. I also find that the said fact is correct in view of the table appended to the impugned order vis-a-vis the invoice appearing in the available records. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the authorities below have not applied their mind in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not eligible to the refund claim of service tax paid for exportation of goods.

3. Therefore, the original authority is required to verify the invoice on the basis of which the refund has been claimed by the appellant and also to specify as to why the terminal handling and the other charges on which the cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant shall not be eligible for refund. The appellant shall also produce the documents evidencing payment of service tax to the service providers in the case of invoices appearing at serial no. 20 to 24 in the table appearing at serial No. 5 in the impugned order.

4. In view of above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority for passing a reasoned and speaking order in above terms, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant for submission of desired documents. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 3