2017 (11) TMI 542 - AT - Service Tax

Non-speaking order - appealable order - CENVAT credit - input services - Held that - the impugned order is not sustainable in law because, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on merits and has straightway rejected the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the original authority has not passed any appealable order - the letter issued by the Superintendent to the assessee is an appealable order and the learned Commissioner should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing the same being not maintainable - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against the order refraining from decision due to lack of a speaking order, rejection of input service distributor registration, appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of no appealable order passed by authorities below.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against the order refraining from decision due to lack of a speaking order:
The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who refrained from making a decision due to the absence of a speaking order by the authorities below. The appellant contended that the impugned order was not sustainable in law as it did not provide any findings on merits but simply rejected the appeal based on the absence of an appealable order. The appellant argued that the letter rejecting the application for registration as an input service distributor was indeed appealable. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits following the principles of natural justice and by passing a reasoned order.

2. Rejection of input service distributor registration:
The appellants, who were manufacturers of Oleoresins of spices, applied for input service distributor registration for their unit at Angamalli, which was rejected by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants on the grounds that no appealable order had been passed by the authorities below. The appellant contended that the rejection letter was appealable, citing relevant legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both parties and the material on record, held that the rejection letter was indeed an appealable order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal on its merits.

3. Appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of no appealable order passed by authorities below:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants on the basis that no appealable order had been passed by the authorities below. The appellant argued that the rejection letter was appealable and relied on legal decisions to support their claim. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, stating that the letter issued by the Superintendent rejecting the application for registration as an input service distributor was indeed appealable. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law as it did not provide any findings on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits following the principles of natural justice and by passing a reasoned order.