Central Excise Appeal (CEL) No. 2 of 2013. Case: Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Nagpur Vs H.T. Associates. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Central Excise Appeal (CEL) No. 2 of 2013
Party Name:Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Nagpur Vs H.T. Associates
Judges:B.P. Dharmadhikari and P.N. Deshmukh, JJ.
Issue:Finance Act, 1994 - Section 86
Citation:2016 (41) STR 27 (Bom)
Judgement Date:October 13, 2015
Court:Bombay High Court


  1. This Court while issuing notice in the matter on 25-6-2015 noted specific contention of the department that necessary documentary evidence was already on record and still CESTAT failed to look into it.

  2. In the light of this order, we have heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dawda with Shri Badar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - assessee. Service on Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

  3. The service of show cause notice, submission of reply thereto, quantification of liability of assessee, are the facts which are not in dispute. After said initial quantification, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Sales Excise (Appeals) at Nagpur and the appellate Authority by order dated 30-11-2010 brought down the demand of service tax from Rs. 37 lakh to Rs. 20,000/­. It also held Respondent No. 1 liable to pay that tax. This finding was not assailed by Respondent No. 1. On the contrary only department approached the CESTAT in further appeal contending that the issue of abatement for Cenvat credit already taken on account of input/input service was not properly addressed to. Thus, the department was not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, which scaled down the liability of Respondent No. 1.

  4. By the impugned order dated 30-3-2012, the CESTAT has in Para 6 observed that Respondent-assessee was not put to notice on the question whether they had claimed Cenvat credit for claiming the abatement and there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that they had accordingly availed the credit during the impugned period.

  5. Shri Mirza, learned counsel submits that all documents are already on record.

  6. This fact that the documents are already on record is not disputed by the assessee. Shri Dawda, learned counsel submits that there was no specific notice in this respect to the assessee. In addition he also points out that the appellant was duty bound to point out to...

To continue reading