Eid Parry (India) Limited and Another Vs. Cce (Ltu) Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944379
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnApr-21-2009
Case NumberAppeal Nos. E/PD/321 of 2008 & E/379 of 2008 E/SO/319 of 2008 & E/377 of 2008
Judge HON’BLE MS.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT & HON’BLE MR. P.KARTHIKEYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
AppellantEid Parry (India) Limited and Another
RespondentCce (Ltu) Chennai and Another
Advocates:For the Appearing Parties: M.N. Bharathi, Advocate. R.P. Meena, SDR.
Excerpt:
jyoti balasundaram in this case, a show-cause notice proposing recovery of credit of rs.17,88,306/- being cenvat credit alleged to have been wrongly availed by the assessees during the period from june 05 to january 06 was issued to them. the notice proposed recovery of appropriate interest and imposition of penalty. the notice was adjudicated by the joint commissioner of central excise, who vide his order-in-original no. 29/2006 dated. 29.12.06 extended credit to the tune of rs.8,39,660/-, disallowed credit of rs.9,48,646/- and confirmed the demand of the above amount together with interest and imposed a penalty of rs.6000/- on the assessee. the assessee as well as the revenue preferred appeals before the commissioner (appeals) who vide the impugned order held that cenvat credit was admissible to the assessee on various charges such as canteen charges, supervision charges, candf charges, insurance fees etc., and restricted the denial of credit to rs.28,560/- on candf service in relation to import of raw sugar and a sum of rs.7112/- on advertisement cost related to parry ware unit in rapine. he did not record any finding on the claim of the assessee for credit on service used in co-generation plant and certification fees. the assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of duty to the above extent by denying credit on certain items as set out above, while the revenue is in appeal against the order extending credit on the other items such as candf charges, insurance fees rent-a-cab service etc. 2). we have heard both sides on the assessees application for waiver of redeposit and the revenues application for stay of operation of the impugned order. we note that detailed findings were recorded by the adjudicating authority on each item while the commissioner (appeals) order does not contain the reasoning for his conclusion that credit is admissible on charges such as, supervision charges, rent-a-cab charges, repair charges for office vehicle, candf charges etc. in these circumstances, revenue is correct in contending that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. the interest of justice, therefore, requires that the impugned order be set aside and the case remitted for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority who shall pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee, and without insisting on any redeposit from the assessee. 3). appeals are thus allowed by way of remand after allowing the application for waiver of redeposit filed by the assessee. since the revenues appeal itself is allowed by way of remand, no ground has been made out for staying the operation of the impugned order.
Judgment:

Jyoti Balasundaram

In this case, a show-cause notice proposing recovery of credit of Rs.17,88,306/- being CENVAT credit alleged to have been wrongly availed by the assessees during the period from June 05 to January 06 was issued to them. The notice proposed recovery of appropriate interest and imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, who vide his Order-in-Original No. 29/2006 dated. 29.12.06 extended credit to the tune of Rs.8,39,660/-, disallowed credit of Rs.9,48,646/- and confirmed the demand of the above amount together with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.6000/- on the assessee. The assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held that CENVAT credit was admissible to the assessee on various charges such as canteen charges, supervision charges, CandF charges, insurance fees etc., and restricted the denial of credit to Rs.28,560/- on CandF service in relation to import of raw sugar and a sum of Rs.7112/- on advertisement cost related to Parry ware unit in Rapine. He did not record any finding on the claim of the assessee for credit on service used in co-generation plant and certification fees. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of duty to the above extent by denying credit on certain items as set out above, while the Revenue is in appeal against the order extending credit on the other items such as CandF charges, insurance fees Rent-a-Cab service etc.

2). We have heard both sides on the assessees application for waiver of redeposit and the Revenues application for stay of operation of the impugned order. We note that detailed findings were recorded by the adjudicating authority on each item while the Commissioner (Appeals) order does not contain the reasoning for his conclusion that credit is admissible on charges such as, supervision charges, Rent-a-Cab charges, repair charges for office vehicle, CandF charges etc. In these circumstances, Revenue is correct in contending that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The interest of justice, therefore, requires that the impugned order be set aside and the case remitted for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority who shall pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee, and without insisting on any redeposit from the assessee.

3). Appeals are thus allowed by way of remand after allowing the application for waiver of redeposit filed by the assessee. Since the Revenues appeal itself is allowed by way of remand, no ground has been made out for staying the operation of the impugned order.