M/s. P & H Associates Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad


Appeal No. : ST/13894/2013
[Application No. ST/Stay/13620/2013]

Arising out of : OIO No. VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-10-13-14 dt. 04.10.13

Passed by :   Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara

For approval and signature :

Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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



Appellant (s) : M/s. P & H Associates

Represented by : Shri S.R. Dixit, Advocate

Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara

Represented by : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R.

CORAM :

Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon ble Member (Technical)


Date of Hearing / Decision :  02.07.2014


ORDER No. A/11167 / 2014  Dated 02.07.2014

Per :  Mr. M.V. Ravindran;

When this stay petition was called out, we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass accordingly, we dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal for disposal.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.



3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands raised on the appellant under the category Commercial and Industrial Construction Services by declining to give the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST.   The alternative claim of the appellant for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 is also declined on the ground that the value of the goods and materials sold was not properly justified by producing evidences.  Before the Tribunal, appellant produces some records and prima-facie, it shows some kind of sale of materials.  This sale of material needs to be gone into detail which can be done only by the adjudicating authority by scrutinizing the records, if any, that may be produced by the appellant.

4. At the same time, we are also deprecate the attitude of the appellant for having not produced these documents before the adjudicating authority and producing the same before us for the first time.

5. In the interest of justice, we find that the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to verify and scrutinize the documents as to the claim of the appellant for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST.  Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)



(H.K. Thakur) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical)     Member (Judicial)
..KL