9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 977 - AT - Service TaxDemand of Service Tax - Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after allowing the inspection of the record - contention of Revenue that Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand w.e.f. 11.05.2001 - Held that - High Court in the case of CC Amritsar v. M/s.Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt.Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 276 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) held that after amendment to Section 35A(3) of Act Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Central Board of Excise & Customs issued instruction dated 25.07.2008 to this effect also. merit in the contentions of the Revenue that Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act. As respondents made a request for copies of seized records before the adjudicating authority. The Respondents are entitled for copies of relied upon documents and also the un-relied upon documents which were seized.
Issues: Appeal against remand order by Commissioner(Appeals) under Section 35A(3) of Central Excise Act regarding Service Tax demand and penalties imposed on a security agency provider for not providing copies of seized documents.
Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed an Appeal against the remand order by Commissioner(Appeals), arguing that post the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner(Appeals) no longer has the authority to remand cases. The Revenue cited decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in support of their contention. 2. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CC, Amritsar v. M/s.Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt.Ltd., which held that post the amendment, the Commissioner(Appeals) lacks the power to remand cases. Additionally, the Central Board of Excise & Customs issued an instruction in 2008 supporting this view. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the Commissioner(Appeals) exceeded their authority in remanding the case. 3. The Respondents, a security agency provider, had requested copies of seized documents before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the Respondents are entitled to copies of both relied upon and un-relied upon documents seized. The Show Cause Notice included enclosures such as the seizure list, TR-6 challan copies, statements, and bills. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to ensure the Respondents receive all necessary documents and have a fair opportunity to present their case. 4. The Tribunal disposed of the Appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of providing the Respondents with all relevant documents and affording them a proper hearing before making a decision.
|
