Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Eclerx Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I on 9 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. ST/88958, 88961/14-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PD/610 & 611/ST-I/2014 dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== M/s eClerx Services Ltd.
Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Respondent Appearance:
Shri Tarun Jain, Advocate for Appellant Shri D. Nagvenkar, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 09.11.2016 Date of Decision: 09.11.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran:
These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PD/610 & 611/ST-I/2014 dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the appellant herein is eligible for the refund of the Service Tax paid on the services exported by them or otherwise.
4. Both the lower authorities have held that Service Tax paid by the appellants are eligible as refund/rebate cleared to details but not eligible for the service exported out of India. Both the lower authorities have, in our view over looked the fact that in exports made have to be tax free. If as assessee discharges the tax liability, has a right to claim the refund that cannot be abrogated. We were informed by the learned Counsel that on identical issue refund claim/rebate claim for the subsequent period has been sanctioned by the very same authorities. He produces the copies of same sanction orders. In our considered view in both these appeals, the adjudicating authority should be extended an opportunity to reconsider the issue and also appreciate the fact as stated by the learned Counsel in respect of subsequent orders. Without any expressing any opinion on merit of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, who will come to a conclusion after following principle of natural justice. Since the refund claim is of 2013. We direct the adjudicating authority to come to a conclusion on this matter within three months from the date of serving of copy of this order. The appeals are disposed of as indicated hereinabove. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) (C.J. Mathew) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Sp 3 APPEAL NO. ST/88958, 88961/14-Mum