TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is a non-speaking order, with reference to what is claimed by the 2nd respondent and denied by the Department - Needless to state that CESTAT is the final fact finding authority, and obligated to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and arrive at a conclusion, instead of applying general principles. Going through the material on record, we are of the view that general principles in transfer of Units, have been applied by the Tribunal. The matter is remitted to CESTAT, Chennai, for consideration, on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.M.A. No. 1753 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - S. Manikumar and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act. Both interest and penal provisions have been invoked, in the show cause notice. After due process, the adjudicating authority, vide Order-in-Original No. 49/2011, dated 3-10-201, has confirmed the demand of ₹ 25,75,000/-, with interest, and imposed penalty, equal to the amount of credit taken. 4. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, M/s. Bright Brother India Ltd., Pondicherry, 2nd respondent herein, has filed an appeal before the first appellate authority viz., Commissioner (Appeals). The said authority has rejected the appeal on 3-1-2014. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai, 1st respondent herein. Vide Final Order No. 40197 of 2016, dated 5-2-2016, the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut service, but on only the ground that the Commissioner (A) has not ruled out the relevancy of the service? 6. Record of proceedings shows that on 1-9-2016, this Court, while admitting this appeal, on the above substantial questions of law, ordered notice to the respondents. 7. In support of the above substantial questions of law, the appellant has raised following grounds, c) (1) The head office at Mumbai of the 2nd respondent in their capacity as Input Service Distributor distributed the service tax charged by M/s. Ambit Corporate Finance Ltd., Mumbai for assisting the sale of 5 units of M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd., to their units at Pondicherry and Faridabad. d) (2) The period of dispute in this case is January, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises. (d) Service used in relation to advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs. (e) Service used in relation activities relating to business and outward transportation up to the place of removal. f) (4) Each of the above 5 limbs, is an independent benefit/concession. If a service falls/covered under anyone of the above, then credit of input services would be admissible even if the service does not fall under the other limbs. All the above limbs of input service have an element of adding value to the principal activity of the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, inviting the attention of this Court to an Order-in-Appeal No. 163/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2010, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-IV, New CGO Complex, NH-IV, Faridabad-121001, between M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd., Plot No. 16-17, Sector-24, Faridabad and Central Excise Department, on the very same subject matter, in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, Mr. T.R. Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in an identical matter, service tax paid by the 2nd respondent s Head Office, on the fees paid for business consultancy services, has been held to be correctly, available by them. He further submitted that the Department has accepted the abovesaid order and therefore, not open to file the instant appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with a case, whereby, a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, by applying the ratio of the decision of a Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [2000 (118) E.L.T. 104 (T-LB)], without recording any findings of fact. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Apex Court, while holding that it is not sufficient in a judgment, to give conclusions alone, but it is necessary to give reasons, in support of the conclusions arrived at, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the findings recorded by the Tribunal therein, were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision, by a speaking order, in accordance with law, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
