Case Law Details

Case Name : J.B.M. Auto Components Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Final Order No. ST/A/484 OF 2012-CUS
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/06/2012
Related Assessment Year :


J.B.M. Auto Components Ltd.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I


APPEAL NO. ST/486 OF 2006

JUNE 25, 2012


Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member

After hearing both sides, we find that the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 5,17,537/- stand confirmed against the appellant on the ground that during the period 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, they have provided management consultancy services to M/s. Krupp JBM Pvt. Ltd. Tamilnadu with whom they have entered into an agreement.

2. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has observed as under:

“…. I observe that as per the said agreement it has clearly been agreed upon at Page No. l that the appellants shall provide the Management and administrative assistance in respect of C 195 project of Ford India Ltd. The adjudicating authority has discussed in-depth the activities carried out by the appellants and correctly evaluated and concluded that the services provided by the appellants fall within the ambit of definitions of taxable service i.e. Management Consultant as have been provided in the Act ibid. The adjudicating authority has considered all contentions of the appellants and voluntary statements tendered by the concerned officials duly authorised by the appellants minutely and passed the impugned order. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The order-in-Appeal No. 107/2004-CE dated 23.6.2004 in r/o Batliboi Consultants (P) Ltd. passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore – 2006 (1) STR 229 (Commr. Appl) and Order-in-Appeal No. 157/2004-CE dated 20.8.2004 in r/o Maini Precision Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore – 2006 (1) STR 230 (Commr. Appl) quoted by the appellants during personal hearing are not relevant as facts and circumstances of the instant case are different. In view of the above, I do not find sufficient force in the appeal and therefore reject the same.”

3. As is seen from the above, appellate authority has not applied his own independent mind to various issues involved in the appeal and various contentions raised by the appellant. It stand simply observed by the appellate authority that all the issues stand discussed in detail by the adjudicating authority and he find himself in agreement with the same. Such types of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held to be just and fair orders. Similarly, he has simply observed that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not relevant without discussing as to how the same are not relevant and what is difference in the facts and circumstances of those cases. As compared to the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not hasten to call impugned order as cryptic. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. Needless to say that he will deal with all the issues raised before him by the appellants after granting opportunity of personal hearing to them.

4. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.


More Under Excise Duty


  1. S K Singal says:

    What could be considered as “reasonable Time” for passing Order after final Personal Hearing ?
    Is there any circular / guidelines from CBEC / CESTAT about maximum time for issue of Adjudication Order after reserving the Order ?
    What could be the affect of such delayed Order if issued after about 6 months of Personal Hearing ?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021