Virchow Laboratories Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 04-2014 dated 24/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II( Appeal) ]

For approval and signature:

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?

Virchow Laboratories Ltd Plot No.4, S.v. Co-op. Industrial Estate, I.d.a, Jeedimetla, HYDERABAD - 500055 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-iv POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri M. Rajendran, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015

Date of Decision: 06/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20547 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

The Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the directions given by him to the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount demanded.

2. Learned counsel submits that the demand has arisen on the ground that in respect of inputs sold by the appellant as such, they should have reversed CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs sold as such from the credit taken on GTA service. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the Commissioner(Appeals) decision against the Department and the show-cause notice came to be issued by the Superintendent for the subsequent period because the Department could not filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) in favour of the assessee because the amount involved was less as per the National Litigation Policy. Further he also submits that there are several decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana taking a view in favour of the assessee.

3. Under the circumstances, I consider that the Commissioner(Appeals) could have decided the issue without insisting on any predeposit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal in merits without insisting on any predeposit after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.