M/S. R.M. Dhariwal (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune ...

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/04/10 dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

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 Yes of the Order?

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

M/s. R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl.Comm. (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 30/01/2015 Date of decision : 30/01/2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/04/10 dated 08.01.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires the appeal is directed against impugned order which has upheld the rejection of the refund claims filed by the appellant.

4. Ld. Counsel would submit that in the appellants own case, this Bench vide final order no. A/2183/13/CSTB/C-I dated 25.10.2013 has held that the service rendered by the appellant would not get categorised under Scientific and Technical service. It is his submission that revenue has rejected the refund application only on the ground that the service rendered by the appellant would get covered under Scientific and Technical service.

5. In our considered view, the order of the Tribunal was not before the first appellate authority; he may have taken a different view if the same would have been put up before him. We also notice that the first appellate authority has not considered the issue of unjust enrichment in the impugned order. To our mind, the entire issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. The appellant is at liberty to produce any evidence before the first appellate authority in support of his opinion.

6. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3