9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 96 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - pre-deposit - case of appellant is that dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of Section 35F is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the binding judicial precedents - Held that - this case needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (A) and hence, I remand the case to Commissioner (A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits without insisting for the pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Stay Order No.12/2013. Analysis: The appeal was directed against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Stay Order No.12/2013. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing digital panel meters and energy meters, availed credit of service tax on input services. The original authority confirmed a demand, allowing partial credit. The appellant filed an appeal with a stay application, which was rejected for non-compliance with pre-deposit. The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable, citing judicial precedents and wider interpretations of input services. Various cases were referenced to support the claim that the input services were valid. The AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and case laws cited by the appellant, remanded the case to the Commissioner (A) for a decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The Tribunal noted that most input services in question had been recognized as valid input services in previous decisions and in the appellant's own case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for a reasoned decision in accordance with the law. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in Open Court on 31/03/2017.
|
