9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of natural justice and without considering the facts and the grounds of appeal is liable to be set aside. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a de novo order after considering the facts and the grounds of appeal and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/20012/2019-SM, ST/20013/2019-SM, ST/20014/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20132-20134/2019 - Dated:- 5-2-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Disha Gursahaney Advocate For the Appellant Shri Gopa Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellant has filed these three appeals against the impugned order dt. 03/10/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant promotes and markets the products of Micron Technology USA and Singapore. According to the appellant the services rendered by the appellant fall in the category of Information Technology Software Service and Marketing and Sales Support Services fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service . Appellant filed refund claims as per provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. Thereafter show-cause notices were issued to the appellant for rejection of refund claim on various grounds. After following the due process, the original authority partly sanctioned refund and partly rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner(App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion for specific reasons. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: i. S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 44 ii. Testeels Ltd. Vs. N.M. Desai, Conciliation Officer and another AIR 1970 Guj.1 iii. Excel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2007 (7) S.T.R. 542 (Tri.-Bang.) iv. J.M. Ramachandra Sons Vs. CEGAT 2002 (139) E.L.T. 36 (Del.) v. State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh 2004 (164) E.L.T. 137 (SC) vi. Information Technology Park Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore 2010- TIOL-304-CESTAT-BANG. vii. CCE, Indore Vs. M/s. Engineers Combine 2009-TIOL-546- CESTAT-DEL. 4.1. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the principle of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r granting the refund without adverting to the facts of the present case. Further I also find that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. I also find that in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the view that the impugned order which is passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the facts and the grounds of appeal is liable to be set aside and I do so. After setting aside the impugned order, I remand back the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a de novo order after considering the facts and the grounds of appeal and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
