State Bank Of India vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 10/2014 dated 29/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II ( Appeals)]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. 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

State Bank of India Hyderabad Main Branch, Kothi Hyderabad  500 095 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-II L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad  500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Sanjay Khemani, CA Barodawala Mansion, B Wing, 3rd Floor, 81, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai  400 018 For the Appellant

Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 11/02/2015 Date of Decision: 11/02/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20301 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal has been filed only on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the matter should not have given directions about penalty and interest and non-adjustment of excess payment. Therefore we consider that the appeal itself can be decided at this stage itself and accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeal is taken up for disposal. Having remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, there was no need for the Commissioner to give a direction that penalty and interest and adjustment of excess payment need not be considered again. In our opinion under the circumstances it would have been appropriate to leave the decision about penalty, interest and adjustment of excess payment also to the original authority when re-quantification exercise is taken up. Therefore we set aside the impugned order as regards the above observations are concerned and direct the original adjudicating authority to consider all the issues afresh and pass a well reasoned order in accordance with law.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss