M/S. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.9/2014(P)(D), dated 03.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that does not examine, for each claimed input service, its relevance to and integral connection with the output service, and that gives no reasons for its conclusion on each such claim, is non-speaking and unreasoned, and suffers from legal infirmity. Where the adjudicating authority has not dealt with each claim of input service and stated its reasons on each, the proper course is to remand the matter to that authority to decide each claim afresh by a speaking order that states the matter in controversy, the decision and the reasons for it, after affording the appellant a fair opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.9/2014(P)(D), dated 03.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri S. Ramachandran, [No vakalat on file] Adv.
For the Respondent Shri M. Rammohan Rao, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 06-08-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 41096 / 2014
Perusal of para 2 of the learned Commissioners order categorically shows the claim of Cenvat credit made by the appellant. That relates to certain services claimed to be input services. Those were:- Maintenance, Foreign outsourcing, Rent, Security, Telephone, Training charges, Audit Fees, Consultancy, Courier, Software and Internal outsourcing.
2. While the services above were specifically claimed to be input service, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to deal with the relevancy, integral connection as well as dependability of each such services with the output service which is claimed to be export of service, by the appellant. In absence of any examination of the nature of the claim, relevant evidence as well as law applicable in respect of each such claim, the order is said to be non-speaking and unreasoned.
3. To remove the above said defects in the impugned order, the appeal is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with each claim of the claim stated above and pass a speaking order thereon stating reason of his decision. He is required to bring out the matter in controversy, his decision and reason of decision in specific terms. Without such course of natural justice being followed the order is also said to be suffering from legal infirmity.
3. Appellant is entitled to fair opportunity of hearing before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of remand proceeding. 4. In view of the disposal of the appeal as above, stay application is disposed accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 08-08-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 06.08.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 06.08.2015
Fair Order Typing 8.07.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 ST/S/41492/2014 and ST/41223/2014
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