Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cst, Bangalore vs M/S. Mercedes Benz Research & ... on 22 October, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Court I(DB) Date of Hearing:22/10/2013 Date of decision:22/10/2013 Application No.ST/Stay/362-363/2012 Appeal No.ST/586-587/2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.441&442/2011 dt. 12/12/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore) CST, Bangalore ..Appellant(s) Vs. M/s. Mercedes Benz Research & Development Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the appellant. Ms. Rajitha Nair, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No.26820-26821/2013 [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy] The respondent claimed refund of service tax paid on input services used in the output services exported by them under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. The refund was claimed on several services which are as follows: maintenance services, process training, transportation services, CATIA V5 services, consultancy charges, technical consultancy, software services, renting of immovable property, lease line services, catering services, manpower recruitment charges, corporate training on web services, maintenance of electrical, network and telecommunication work, registration fees towards training, Java training charges, training on business communication, AMC for Toshiba projectors model, facility management charges, customized comprehensive support of the machines, technical training, E-coolaboration services, renewal of license or purchase of new license, maintenance charges for building, AMC for HP servers, desktops and printers for external tape device, repair and maintenance charges for 40 LCD monitors and on sigh technical training, manpower outsourcing services, corporate training on Adobe in design, SAP professional usage maintenance.
2. Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order, after considering the submissions, has taken a view that there was no justification for denial of refund in respect of the services except outdoor catering services, interior decoration services, rent-a-cab operator services. However, she has also taken a view that as regards renting of immovable property services, appellant is not eligible for the service tax paid on rent paid on car parking. She has also not upheld the view taken by the original authority that credit has to be denied because the name of the appellant firm was not the same name on the ground that the address was same. Revenue is challenging the order on the ground that the services have no nexus with the output services and therefore Refund should not have been allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). Further the Revenue is also in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner(Appeals) did not have power to remand and further there is no discussion about formula to be applied while quantification, according to the Revenue, as per the Notification No.5/2006. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that we cannot find anything wrong with the observations of the Commissioner(Appeals) as regards the eligibility of the appellant for refund. She has considered the issue properly and wherever there is no nexus the same has been disallowed. As regards the formula to be applied, we find that this has not been considered by either of the lower authorities and since the Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matter and we also intend to do so, we feel that it is better to remand the matter to the original authority. As regards power to remand, in view of the fact that the appellant has not submitted the CAs certificate and in respect of renting of immovable property, a portion has been upheld to be admissible, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the original authority. Therefore without going into the question whether the Commissioner(Appeals) has the power to remand or not, we exercise our power to remand the matter to the original authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of observations made by us hereinabove. In the result, the stay application as well as the appeal gets disposed of by way of remand of the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication in terms of the observations made by us.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)
( ANIL CHOUDHARY) (B.S.V. MURTHY)
MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
Nr
4