Page 127 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI v. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. 29
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 29 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI
Versus
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
1
C.M.A. No. 690 of 2019, decided on 28-1-2020
Appellate Tribunal - Non-speaking order - Refund of Service Tax -
Port services - Prima facie, it appears from order of First Appellate Authority
that service provider has only charged wharfage charges directly payable to
port authorities and therefor held that said charges are not covered under Port
services - In its order Tribunal has not decided real issue involved but has is-
sued a non-speaking order in favour of assessee without any discussion on
facts of case as brought out in order of First Appellate Authority - Tribunal
being last fact finding authority ought to have discussed relevant facts before
setting aside order of First Appellate Authority on the basis of some earlier
order - Thus, without going into question of law at this stage, matter remanded
to Tribunal to redecide issue after proper discussion on facts and after giving
hearing opportunity to both parties - Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 4, 5,
6]
Matter remanded
CASE CITED
SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (40) S.T.R. 980 (Tribunal) — Referred ......................................... [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri V. Sundareswaran, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the Appellant.
Shri S. Muthu Venkatraman, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Vineet Kothari, J.]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal
against the order of the Learned CESTAT dated 1-5-2018. The limited ground on
which the present appeal is pressed by the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Revenue Mr. V. Sundareswaran is as discussed by the Learned Tribunal in
Paragraph 5(i) of the impugned order. Though the Coordinate Bench of this
Court had admitted the appeal on 31-1-2019 on four substantial questions of law,
the only question pressed by the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Reve-
nue is Question No. (a), which reads as follows :-
“(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the as-
sessee in respect of the part of the refund claim relating to invoices for
port services?”
2. The relevant findings of the Learned Tribunal in Paragraph No. 5(i)
of the order dated 1-5-2018 reads as follows.
“5(i). On the issue of invoices issued by M/s. Natvar Parikh Industries re-
lating to port services, we find that the matter is fully covered by the Tribu-
nal decision in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra), the relevant portion of which is
reproduced for ready reference :-
“8. The above clearification throws light on difficulties faced by
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 41434/2018, dated 1-5-2018 by CESTAT, Chennai.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  191