M/S. Rolltec Engineering vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Ltu, ...
- CitationAppeal No.68/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority disposes of an appeal by simply endorsing the adjudicating authority's order without examining the evidence and submissions made in respect of each disputed input service, the order is not a valid appellate decision and offends the principles of natural justice. Non-consideration of a party's categorical submissions on the relevance of each disputed service to its manufacturing and sales activity constitutes a violation of natural justice. Where the appellant's submissions on the nexus of each service with the manufacture and sale of its excisable goods are apparent from the record and remand would be futile, the Tribunal may decide the matter itself rather than remit it, and may allow the appeal on finding that the services in question are relevant to and integrally connected with the manufacture and sale activity so as to qualify as Cenvatable input services.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.68/2010, dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), LTU, Chennai]
M/s. ROLLTEC ENGINEERING APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LTU, CHENNAI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 25-06-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40709 / 2015
Learned counsel submits that disallowance of Cenvat credit has been made in respect of the following services availed suffering service tax:-
(i) Car Hiring Charges (ii) Cleaning Charges (iii) Sewage Line Maintenance Charges (iv) Security Services (v) Foreign Travel Services (vi) Container Fumigation Service (vii) Pallet Fumigation Service (viii) Courier Charges and (ix) Export Freight.
2. All the above services are integrally connected to the output manufactured by the appellant, which were ultimately exported. Foreign travel is bound to be incurred to procure orders and also to ensure business since the appellant is engaged in export of brake assembly parts of motor vehicles. It is also a Central Excise duty assessee. All the services availed had a direct nexus to the manufacture and also to the business activity of the appellant. Revenue on the other hand supports the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not disclose as to examination of the evidence in respect of each of the services availed by the appellant. He simply endorsed the order passed by the learned Adjudicating authority. This is vividly clear when pages 9 and 10 of the appellate order is examined. Such bald order is not accepted by law to be passed by an appellate authority. Therefore, submission of the appellant which is apparent from the order itself depicted in paras 6 and 9 is required to be referred. The appellant had made categorical submission as to how Car Hiring has relevance to the business. It was also explained how Cleaning Service and Sewage Line Maintenance Charges were necessity for protection of its operations. Similarly, relevancy of Security Services was explained. So also the Foreign Travel Service, which was made was to be connected with the manufacture and sale activity. The appellant further explained the Container Fumigation Service, Pallet Fumigation Service as well as Courier Charges which were relevant for its exporting activity.
4. When the appellants argument were advanced in the manner indicated above, non-consideration thereof itself is a violation of principles of natural justice. That buries justice. Therefore, when the appellant brought out categorical submission as above, it would be futile exercise to send back again the matter for re-consideration. Therefore, appeal is allowed to reduce the litigation, finding relevancy and integration of the Cenvatable input services with the manufacture and sales activity of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 25-06-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 25.06.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 25.06.2015
Fair Order Typing 25.06.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 29.06.2016
5 E/00671/2010
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