2014 (4) TMI 373 - AT - Central Excise

Amendment of the memo of appeal - Assessee contends that application does not spell out the nature of the required amendment and hence should be considered as incomplete/defective - Held that - On a comparison of the amended text of appeal memo with the original text of appeal memo, I have been able to find out the nature of the intended amendment. By this amendment, the appellant seeks to deny CENVAT credit to the respondent on air travel agent s service and not on insurance service mentioned in the original appeal memo. The appellant requires the former service to be substituted for the latter in some of the paragraphs appearing under the caption Grounds of Appeal - I allow the miscellaneous application and accept the amended memo of appeal - Amendment allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deficiency in the miscellaneous application seeking to amend the appeal memo.
2. Amendment requested by the appellant to deny CENVAT credit on "air travel agent's service."
3. Consideration of cross-objections filed by the respondent.
4. Direction to issue a copy of the amended memo of appeal to the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the deficiency in the miscellaneous application seeking to amend the appeal memo. The application lacked specificity regarding the extent of the required amendment, causing the Assistant Registrar to consider it incomplete/defective. However, after reviewing the amended text of the appeal memo, it was revealed that the appellant intended to substitute "air travel agent's service" for "insurance service" in certain paragraphs under the "Grounds of Appeal." The learned Superintendent (AR) clarified this discrepancy, leading to the allowance of the miscellaneous application and acceptance of the amended memo of appeal.

2. The appellant's request to amend the appeal memo to deny CENVAT credit on "air travel agent's service" instead of insurance service was granted by the judge. The nature of the intended amendment was clarified during the proceedings, highlighting the need for specific amendments in the appeal memo. The judge's decision to allow this amendment was based on the submissions made by the learned Superintendent (AR) and the comparison between the original and amended appeal memos.

3. The judgment also mentions the respondent's "cross-objections" filed in response to the grounds of appeal raised in the original appeal memo. It was deemed necessary to put the respondent on notice of the amended grounds of appeal as well. Consequently, a direction was issued to the Registry to provide the respondent with a copy of the amended memo of appeal along with the notice of the hearing, ensuring fairness and procedural compliance in the legal process.

4. Finally, the judgment adjourned the hearing on the appeal to a specified date, indicating the procedural steps taken during the legal proceedings. The decision to adjourn the hearing to a future date demonstrates the court's commitment to a fair and thorough consideration of the case, allowing both parties sufficient time to prepare and present their arguments effectively.