M/S.Orient Paper Mills vs Cce, Bhopal
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/53932/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the adjudicating authority has not discussed a submission made before it on the disputed use of the service, and the question whether the service was used for the manufacturing activity or for site formation and earth moving turns on that unaddressed submission, the appellate authority's order is to be remanded for fresh fact-finding, with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording the appellant a personal hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BPL-EXCUS-000-APP-233 -13-14 dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
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.Orient Paper Mills Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Present for the Appellant :Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri G.R. Singh, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.05.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51814/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. The preliminary ground raised by the appellant in this appeal is that, due to inadvertence the appellant had mentioned before the authorities below that cenvat credit has been taken on site formation and earth moving services, whereas, the disputed services have actually been used for the purpose of digging, cleaning of pond situated outside the factory premises. Though, this stand was taken before the Commissioner (Appeals), but no specific findings have been recorded in the impugned order.
2. Considering the fact that the above submissions of the appellant have not been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I am of the opinion that the matter should go back for a fresh fact finding on the submissions of the appellant that the use of the disputed service relates to storing of water for the purpose of manufacturing activity and not for site-formation and earth moving services. The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the matter afresh should consider the submissions of the appellant and thereafter should pass a reasoned and speaking order on this issue, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
2
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