M/S H.B. Electronics vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/651,652/2007-DB [Arising out of OIA No.43-45/2007/Commr(A)/Raj, dt.05.03.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot]

1. M/s H.B. Electronics 2. M/s Prompt Systems & Software Appellants

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Sheth, Advocate For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:07.09.2015

Order No.A/11268-11269/2015, dt.07.09.2015

Per: P.K. Das

This is a second round of litigation before the Tribunal.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Computer Systems, classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that they were manufacturing computer system as well as trading activity of parts of computers. He fairly submits that in earlier occasion, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal to the extent of re-sale of the parts would not be dutiable. Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. By Order No.A/1814-1822/WZB/AHD/2006, dt.29.08.2006, the Tribunal passed an ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh, after considering the case laws as mentioned in the appeal of the Revenue.

4. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal with certain direction. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that the value of the trading goods also clubbed with the value of computer system. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not seen the documents and the invoices.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Advocate appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested that whatever they have submitted before the earlier Appellate authority and the documents submitted earlier holds good for the purpose of passing of the order in the present proceedings. It is also submitted that the invoices represent only the sale of parts and not computer system and therefore, demand of duty on trading goods cannot be sustained. In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the documents of the trading goods.

6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh, after considering the documents. The learned Advocate for the Appellant is directed to produce all the documents before the Commissioner (Appeals) during de-novo proceedings. The learned Advocate undertakes to co-operate with the Commissioner (Appeals) during proceedings. As the matter is old one, the Commissioner (Appeals) is requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3