M/S.Amtek India Ltd vs Cce & St, Jaipur-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/51627/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, on the ground that the appellant had produced no documentary evidence before the first appellate authority to show that its price was on a FOR destination basis, that goods were delivered at the buyer's premises, and that outward freight formed part of the transaction value; the Tribunal holds that such evidence must be verified before the matter can be adjudicated, and that the appellant must be given an opportunity of hearing before the original authority decides afresh.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.187 (VC)CE/JPR-I/2013 dated 29.11.2013/19.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE 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.Amtek India Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Victor Das, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri G.R. Singh, DR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 54115/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur wherein cenvat credit of service tax on GTA service taken by the appellant has been disallowed.
2. Heard the ld. Counsel from both sides and perused the record.
3. I find from paragraph 11 in the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically observed that the appellant had not submitted any document in order to substantiate their claim that prices were on FOR destination basis. Further, in the said order, it has also been recorded that no documentary evidences were produced before the original authority to substantiate that the goods had been delivered at the buyers door step and that the outward freight paid on supply of goods is forming part of the transaction value, on which Central Excise Duty liability has been discharged.
4. In view of the fact that no documentary evidences were produced by the appellant before the first appellate authority, I am of the opinion that the same are required to be verified for the purpose of adjudication of the matter and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for denovo adjudication of the matter.
5. The appellant shall produce documentary evidences to establish that the price charged from the customer was on FOR destination basis and the ownership / title of the goods have been transferred to the customer at their site. Needless to say, an opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the appellant before deciding the matter afresh. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 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