2014 (8) TMI 850 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Remands Appeal for Fresh Decision, Emphasizes Personal Hearing

M/s EXECHON Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-I

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the first appellate authority for a fresh decision without requiring additional deposits. The ... Denial of CENVAT credit - rent a cab service - Held that:- major amount of CENVAT Credit (Rs.50,000/-) pertains to rent-a-cab services prior to April 2011. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit of rent-a-cab services prior to April 2011 has been favourably decided by this Bench for granting Stay Orders on this issue. For the remaining amounts, appellant has already reversed an amount of ₹ 8,716/- which can be considered as sufficient compliance of pre-deposit order by first appellate authority for hearing and deciding the issue on merit. In view of the above, order dt.31.12.2013 passed by first appellate authority is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for deciding the issue on merit without insisting for any further deposit - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on rent-a-cab services, catering services, and courier services.Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Rent-a-Cab Services:The appellant filed a stay application and appeal concerning the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the deposit of a certain amount. The issue revolved around the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on services like Catering, Courier, and Rent-a-cab. The appellant's advocate argued that a significant portion of the credit was related to rent-a-cab services before April 2011. Referring to a previous case, the advocate contended that stay was granted for rent-a-cab services credit in a similar matter. Additionally, a portion of the amount had already been deposited by the appellant, which was argued to be sufficient compliance with the order. The Tribunal observed that the major amount of CENVAT Credit was indeed for rent-a-cab services before April 2011, a matter favorably decided previously. The appellant had also reversed a certain amount, which was considered adequate compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case to the first appellate authority for a decision on the merit without requiring further deposit, keeping all issues open for the authority to decide.Decision and Remand:The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding it to the first appellate authority for a fresh decision without insisting on additional deposits. The order emphasized granting a personal hearing to the appellant during the proceedings. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues for the first appellate authority to determine.