Nagarjuna Cerachem Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...
- CitationAppeal No 17-2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a demand for denial of Cenvat credit rests on the assessee's failure to produce the supporting documents, but copies of those documents were produced after they had been returned by the investigating officers and were never examined by the original authority or the appellate authority relying on that authority's observations, the denial cannot stand without verification of the documents; the order is set aside and the matter remanded for the appellate authority to verify the documents and decide the admissibility of the credit after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 17-2014 dated 19/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , GUNTUR( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
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?
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?
Nagarjuna Cerachem Pvt Ltd Perikagudem Village,mandavalli Mandal KRISHNA - 00 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Guntur P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Y.S. Reddy, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri R. Raju, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 04/02/2015
Date of Decision: 04/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Shri JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20276 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The issue involves eligibility of cenvat credit of tax paid on input services when the assessee is availing excise exemption. As regards this issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided in favour of the appellant. However, cenvat credit availed on the input service of transport of goods through pipe line provided by M/s GAIL has been denied on the ground that the appellants did not produce the documents on the basis of which credit was availed.
2. After going through the records and hearing both the sides, we find that the documents had been recovered by investigating officers and after the documents were returned to the appellants, they had produced copies of the same. However these copies were not seen or verified by the original authority nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) who went by the observations of original authority. Since the credit has been rejected without verification of the documents, we consider that the appeal itself should be decided at this stage by setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) so that documents can be verified and admissibility of cenvat credit can be decided. Accordingly, the stay petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded with a request to the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Order pronounced in court)
JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM PRESIDENT
B.S.V. MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja..
3
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