M/S. Neherbs vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax

(Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 27/COMMR/ST/GHY/12-13 dated-22/03/2013 passed by the Commr. , Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati)

For approval and signature of:

DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

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

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. NEHERBS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Sri Bipin Kumar, C.A. FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. Sharma, Commr. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 22/01/2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75023/2015 Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.1.29 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under other provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri Bipin Kumar for the applicant submits that they have attended the personal hearing before the Ld. Commissioner on 12th March, 2013. In the said hearing, they requested more time to produce necessary evidences/documents, in support of their case. Consequently, the Commissioner allowed them to submit the documents upto 22nd March, 2013. It is his submission that on 22 March, 2013, in the second half of the office hours, they approached the Commissioners office to submit the documents but were turned down. Thus, they could not place any documents and the order was passed on the same day. He prays that an opportunity may be granted to them to place all the documents before the Ld. Commissioner, in support of their claim. He offers to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs and prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner.

3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. He submits that inspite of sufficient time allowed, the applicant had failed to submit the documents before the adjudicating authority. However, he has no objection in remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue afresh on merits.

4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

5. We find that the appellants grievance is that they were not allowed the opportunity to present all the documents/evidences before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, whereas the Ld. A.R. submits that sufficient time was allowed. At this stage instead of examining the rival contentions whether sufficient opportunity was given or otherwise, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the appellant be given one more opportunity to place the documents before the adjudicating authority. Consequently, as offered, the Appellant is directed to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order and report compliance directly to Ld. Commissioner. On recording compliance, the Ld. Commissioner would proceed with the matter afresh. Needless to mention that an opportunity of hearing be granted to the appellant. All issues are kept open. The appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Sd/- 23/01/15 Sd/- 23/01/15 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) k.b/-

Service Tax Appeal No.75600/2014

4