By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 25, 2016: BAJAJ Auto Ltd. had filed an appeal in the year 2010 against a letter No. LTU/Mum/CEX/ADj-I/ST-Ref/Bajaj/2008 dated 4.11.2009 issued by CCE, LTU, Mumbai vide which he rejected the claim of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by the service provider while constructing the Pant Nagar plant of the appellant.

The CCE justified this rejection of credit by giving the reasoning that the final goods manufactured at Pant Nagar plant are exempted.

This appeal was heard recently.

A preliminary objection was raised by the AR as to whether the letter 04.11.2009 of the Commissioner can be considered as an order and appealed against.

The Bench observed that before intimating the appellant his decision by letter dated 4.11.2009, the CCE, LTU had conducted a personal hearing and considered the written submissions.

Inasmuch as since the letter is communicating a decision which is detrimental to the financial interest of appellant,the same is a “decision”that can be entertained in appeal under section 35B of the CEA, 1944, the Bench held.

On merits, the Bench observed that the appellant had informed that it's Pant Nagar plant was paying excise duty on the goods that were “deemed to be manufactured”and since the CCE had not examined the issue completely and in proper perspective, the case needs reconsideration.

In fine, the CESTAT set aside the letter dated 04.11.2009 and remanded the matter to the CCE, LTU for reconsidering the issue and passing a speaking order.

Noting that the representation of the appellant is of the year 2008, the Bench directed the CCE, LTU to dispose of the matter within three months.

The Appeal was disposed of.

In passing: Strange, stranger, strangest…

(See 2016-TIOL-1528-CESTAT-MUM)