M/S Mather & Platt Pumps Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/RKS/157/2010 dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

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

======================================================

M/s Mather & Platt Pumps Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for Appellant

Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commr. (AR) for Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 08.06.2015

Date of Decision: 08.06.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/RKS/157/2010 dated 27.09.2010.

2. Heard both sides and pre-records.

3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding reversal of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services for the period February 2005 to August 2009. The dispute is regarding the Service Tax paid on this service on an amount collected from the employees of the company, who utilized the canteen services. It is the case of the revenue that appellant is not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit as held by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE V/s Ultratech Cement Ltd., while it is the case of the appellant that they had reversed the Cenvat Credit and had not availed the Cenvat Credit from September 2007.

4. Learned counsel would draw my attention to the fact that they had informed the Supt. of Central Excise about the facts produces the copy of such letter.

5. I find that both the lower authorities have not addressed to this point, nor they have given any findings, obviously this record been not produced before them. In order to verify the factual matrix, the matter needs reconsideration by adjudicating authority. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue after following the principles of natural justice.

6. The appeal is allowed by the way of remand to adjudicating authority.

(Dictated in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)

1