M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIA-AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-015-14-15 dated 23.4.2014 & OIA-AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-013-14-15 dated 21.04.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)

M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble 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?

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.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 23.10.2015

ORDER No. A/11541-11542/2015 Dated 23.10.2015

Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem

The appellants herein have filed two appeals on identical issue against the two impugned Orders-in-Appeal and therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

2. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the lower authorities had rejected their refund claims basically on the ground that sufficient evidence and documents were not produced by the appellants to substantiate their claims. He submits that the refund claims are for the service tax pertaining to export service. He also submits that the issue of limitation is also involved in the matter. Learned Counsel claims that the adjudicating authority had issued the impugned orders without giving them an opportunity and allowing them to co-relate the documents and to produce further documents to answer and clarify the doubts of adjudicating authority, which he had mentioned in the impugned orders. He, therefore, submits that natural justice has been denied to the appellant. He submits that he has the documents and sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims for the refund.

3. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the adjudicating authority had examined the documents submitted by the appellant in support of refund claims and found that the same did not establish their claim for refund. He also submits that the ratio of limitation is also held against them and therefore, the impugned orders are correct, legal and sustainable.

4. It is a well settled law that substantial justice cannot be denied on matters of procedure. As the appellants are claiming that they have the documents and sufficient evidence to establish their claim for refunds, it would be fair and just to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority so that the appellants are given an opportunity to produce the same before the adjudicating authority and try to co-relate the documents. The adjudicating authority can examine them and take a reasoned decision. Hence, in the interest of justice, both the appeals are remanded back to the adjudicating authority. Needless to say that the appellants be given a proper opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that all the issues are kept open and we have not expressed any opinion on merits. The learned Counsel submits that he would cooperate with the adjudicating authority to complete the process at the earliest possible time.

5. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(P.M. Saleem) Member (Technical) .KL

3