M/S. Prathyusha Associates Shipping ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 19/2014 (V-I) ST dated 03/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, VISAKHAPATNAM-I (Appeal).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 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

M/s. Prathyusha Associates Shipping (P) Ltd. 25-40-12, Gangulavari Street VISAKHAPATNAM - 530001 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM  530 035. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G. Prabhakar Sastry, Advocate G.R. KUMAR & CO.

NO.9, MERRY LIFE APPARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, A.P VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017 ANDHRA PRADESH For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR)

For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 13/02/2015

Date of Decision: 13/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20321 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

CENVAT credit of Rs.15,01,800/- has been denied on the ground that appellant had taken CENVAT credit of central excise duty-paid on motor vehicles and trailers which is not admissible. Further, it has also been held that credit of about Rs.8.4 lakhs has been taken on documents which are incomplete.

2. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is engaged in cargo handling service and therefore credit of duty-paid on motor vehicles and trailer is admissible. Further, he also submits that documents had been produced by them and based on the ST-3 returns only the proposal has been made and therefore extended period could not have been invoked.

3. After considering the submissions and going through the records, I find that appellants had not produced the documents to the original authority as well as before the Commissioner (A) because of which they could not verify whether documents were proper or not. As regards admissibility of CENVAT credit on trailers/motor vehicles, the appellant had not appeared before the original authority and the original authority took note of the fact that in ST-3 returns, such credits were linked to renting of immovable property service which is one of the services rendered by the appellant.

3.1 The observations above would show that appellants had not properly represented their case at both the lower levels because of which impugned orders have been passed. Learned counsel makes an offer to deposit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs and requests that matter may be remanded to the original authority so that all the issues can be considered properly on merits. Learned AR has no objection.

4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority without expressing any opinion on any of the issues. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance to the original adjudicating authority who after taking note of the compliance would proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the matter is adjudicated.

(operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

rv 3