M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/547,549-551/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the adjudicating authority has not afforded the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing before passing an order, and where the factual position regarding the service tax paid by the assessee's branches on export-related services is unclear and has not been properly examined by the authorities below, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions, with a proper opportunity of hearing to be given before any order is passed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-761-764/2012/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dated 03.09.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot)
M/s. Adani Wilmar Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 28.07.2015
ORDER No. A/11120-11123/2015 Dated 28.07.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Refined Edible Oil and export of the final product through their various branches all over the country. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that the appellant paid the service tax in respect of activities of various branches. They claimed refund of service tax of the services availed by various branches for export of goods. He fairly submits that the adjudicating authority had not given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. It is contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the basis that Centralised Registration certificate has not incorporated the names of all the branches.
3. We find that there is no clarity of facts in the instant case. Both the authorities below have not dealt with the case in a proper manner. The appellant claimed that they have paid the service tax on behalf of other branches. In view of the above, we set-aside the impugned orders. Matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering the submissions of the appellants. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free