Case Law Details
Jagat Janani Services Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Introduction: In a recent turn of events, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Kolkata directed a re-adjudication in the case of Jagat Janani Services Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. This comes after the adjudicating authority rejected the reconciliation statement, submitted by Jagat Janani Services, without any clear reasoning.
Analysis: The appeal by Jagat Janani Services came against the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 4,51,51,404/-. The initial demand was based on discrepancies observed between ST-3 figures and those reflected in the Balance sheet for the period October 2006 to September 2011.
During the hearing, Jagat Janani Services highlighted that the adjudicating authority rejected their reconciled statement, which was based on statutory documents, without any explanation. They further indicated that the demand, confirmed under Cargo Handling Service/ Mining Service, was for services that were essentially supervisory in nature.
CESTAT, upon review, found that the adjudicating authority failed to provide substantial findings for rejecting the reconciliation statement. The authority also overlooked the appellant’s claim for the receipt of reimbursements of expenses incurred.
Conclusion: Given the inadequacy of the original adjudication, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority. It directed the authority to pass a speaking order after thoroughly reviewing the reconciliation statement and related documents submitted by Jagat Janani Services. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a thorough re-examination.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 4,51,51,404/-. The demand has been raised mainly based on the difference observed by the department between the ST-3 figures and the figures available in the Balance sheet for the period from October 2006 to September 2011.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that during the month of personal hearing, they have submitted a reconciled statement based on their statutory documents. The Appellant has made the following submissions during the hearing;
(i) For the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the demand has been confirmed under Cargo Handling Service/ Mining Service, whereas the service rendered by them was only supervisory in nature.
(ii) They have submitted reconciliation to the adjudicating authority for all the financial years. But, the adjudicating authority has not given any finding based on the reconciled statement.
(iii) For some periods, the amount received include pure reimbursements of expenses and statutory payments. However, the adjudicating authority has not considered their submissions and rejected it as an afterthought.
3. In view of the above submission, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order and requested for remanding it back to the adjudicating authority to look into the documents submitted by them along with reconciliation statement and decide the case afresh.
4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
5. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that the appellant has submitted a reconciliation statement. We find that there is no clear cut findings by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the reconciliation submitted by them. The Appellants claim for receipt of reimbursements of expenses incurred has also not been examined.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order after going through the reconciliation statement along with relevant documents submitted by the appellant.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
