TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of CGST, ST & Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate challenging the order dated 05/04/2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' for short) under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent-Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.- a public limited company is an Assesseee under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT by the impugned order allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent ­ Assesseee. The facts of the case in brief are as under : 4. The Assessee is registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of products falling under chapter 28, 29, 31 of the First Sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal. Being aggrieved by this impugned order, the present Appeal is filed on the following substantial question of law under 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under the Finance Act, 1994. "Whether the Ld.Tribunal erred in holding that there is no foundation in the show cause notice brining out whether any service element was involved while renting the wagons by the Assessee to railways?" 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant impugning the order passed by the CESTAT contended that CESTAT allowed the respondent's Appeal in a perfunctory manner. Inviting our attention to the Order-­in­-Original passed by the Commissioner while adjudicating show cause notice demanding service tax, learned Counsel would submit that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E, Mumbai ­III Vs. EMCO Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 394 (SC)]; (ii) Commissioner Vs. SAIL [2015 (320) E.L.T. A39 (SC)]; (iii) CCE, Rajkot Vs. Amul Industries [2010 (260) E.L.T. 499 (SC). 8. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raymond Ltd V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik [2015 (320) E.L.T. 760 (Bom.)] in support of his submission that the Tribunal is required to refer to all materials before the Commissioner [Appeals] and in complete details and while allowing the appeal, the Commissioner's findings should be dealt with extensively to conclude whether they are perverse and vitiated by error of law apparent on face of record. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of respondent ­Assessee of leasing railway wagons to Railways is liable to service tax under the category "supply of tangible goods service" under section 65 (105)(zzzzj). Thereupon the respondent ­ Assessee filed reply vide letter dated 19/06/2012 through their Advocate. Written submissions were also filed on 13/01/2015. 12. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent­-Assessee, Order-­in­-Original was passed by the Commissioner. During the course of audit conducted by the Central Excise Raigad, Commissionerate, it was revealed as under : (a) M/s. RCF Ltd. Thal Unit is receiving certain amount fromRailways for renting out their own Wagons to the Railways. The assessee and Indian Railways have entered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the wagons by the appellant to the Railways, by recording aforesaid one sentence as its conclusion disposed of the entire Appeal. It is by now well settled that in Appeal filed before the CESTAT, it is required to refer to all the materials before the Commissioner (Appeals). The order passed by CESTAT is devoid of any reason. It has only recorded an abrupt finding without discussing the issue raised before it and without mentioning any reason for the conclusion. We find that there is a detailed discussion in the order of the Commissioner on the facts of the case. Thus, even the facts are not adverted to or dealt with. The decision of the Commissioner is overruled with a single observation that there is no foundation in the show cause no....