Venkatesh Cylinders Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.ST/164/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/02/NSK/2010 dated 11/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik)

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 :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

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

Venkatesh Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Nashik

Appearance:

Shri.Mehul Jivani, CA for appellant Shri.A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Comm.(AR) for respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing : 13/03/2015 Date of Decision : 13/03/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/02/NSK/2010 dated 11/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority. We find that adjudication order clearly indicates the services rendered by the appellant/assessee would fall under the category of management, maintenance or repair service. The first appellate authority, has mis-directed himself and classified the services rendered by the appellant under consultancy service. We find that the first appellate authority has been frugal in words while recording the reasoning for upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority is required to give detailed reason why he has upholding their order of the adjudicating authority. In the absence of any detailed reasoning, we are unable to go into the matter. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to re-consider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. We keep all the issues open. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

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

pj

1 3