Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of C.Ex. & S.Tax vs M/S Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd on 27 December, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/131/2011-SM; E/CO/103/2011 [Arising out of OIA No.Commr.(A)/313/VDR-II/2010, dt.09.11.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vadodara] Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vadodara-II Appellant Vs M/s Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Gohil, A.R. For Respondent: Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:27.12.2016 Order No. A/11900 / 2016, dt.27.12.2016 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. This is appeal filed by the Revenue against OIA No.Commr.(A)/ 313/VDR-II/2010, dt.09.11.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vadodara.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants filed refund claim of service tax paid on various services used in relation to the manufacture of the goods exported following the procedure laid down under Notification No.41/2007-ST as amended. The refund claim was filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax of Division Vadodara instead of proper jurisdictional officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bharuch. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 30.01.2009, proposing to reject their refund claim on the ground that the same was filed by not fulfilling the conditions of Notification No.41/2007, inasmuch as it was filed before the wrong forum. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed their appeal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the refund claim on merit. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal against the said order.
4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing their appeal when the Respondents have not complied with the condition of Notification No.41/2007.
5. The learned Advocate for the Respondents submits that they have complied with all conditions of Notification No.41/2007 and filed refund claim within time, but before the wrong authority. It is his contention that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), appreciating the evidences on record, remanded the matter to the appropriate Adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claim on merit.
6. The only issue needs to be addressed is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to examine the refund application on merit, when the initial refund claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax instead of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. I do not find any discrepancy in the said order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as he has only condoned the filing of refund claim before the inappropriate authority, and remanded the matter to the proper authority for scrutiny of the same.
7. In the result, Revenues appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The learned jurisdictional authority is to decide the refund claim on merit. The cross objection disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Cbb 2