Case Law Details
Lexmark International (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata)
In an appeal involving Lexmark International (India) Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise (CGST & CX), the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of Kolkata ordered a re-adjudication. The reason for the decision was the appellant’s claim of not being given an opportunity to present their case and submit requisite documents before the adjudicating authority.
Analysis: In this case, the appellant claimed that several of their refund requests had been partially rejected due to various reasons, including non-fulfilment of conditions of Notification No.27/2012 dated 18/06/2012 and eligibility of Cenvat Credit on the input and input services used. They filed these refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The appellant’s counsel contended that they were denied the opportunity to present their case or provide necessary documents to the adjudicating authority, resulting in a part rejection of the refund claim. To address this, they requested the tribunal to grant them another chance to present their documentation to the adjudicating authority.
After considering the presented facts and previous orders cited by the appellant’s counsel, CESTAT Kolkata ordered a remand of all appeals to the adjudicating authority. This authority was then directed to provide the appellant an opportunity to present their documentary evidence and to follow the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: This case serves as an important reminder of the principle of natural justice and its critical role in the decision-making process. By ordering a re-adjudication, CESTAT Kolkata has emphasized that all parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their case and documents. It sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld in all proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
All these Appeals arise put out the refund claims filed by the Appellant wherein they were granted cash refund partly and the balance portion was rejected on various grounds like non-fulfilment of condition of Notification No.27/2012 dated 18/06/2012, eligibility of Cenvat Credit on the input and input services used, etc. The refund claims were filed in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that in many cases, they were not given an opportunity to present their case and to submit required documents before the Adjudicating Authority who took the decision to reject part of the refund claim. She prays that they may be given an opportunity to go before the Adjudicating Authority and submit the requisite documents in support of their claim. She also submits that in their own case in respect of the such Appeals filed by them, this Tribunal has remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority to carry out the necessary verification and grant the refund claim, if any. She cites the Final Order No. 76547-76549/2018 dated 10/05/2018 of this Bench.
3. The Learned AR submits that in most of the cases, opportunities were given the Appellant to present their case and make their submissions.
4. After considering the factual details and the perusing the Final Orders dated 10/05/2018 cited by the Learned Counsel, I deem it fit to remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority in all these Appeals.
5. The Adjudicating Authority will give an opportunity to the Appellant to file all their documentary evidence in support of their claim and follow the principles of natural justice.
6. Since the issue pertains to the year 2018, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to complete the proceedings within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
