Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Infotech Enterprises Ltd vs Cc&Ce, Hyderabad-Iv on 25 April, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No.ST/28273 & 28274/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.109 & 110/2013 (H-IV) S.Tax dt. 29/07/2013 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals-II), Hyderabad) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Infotech Enterprises Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Ms. Rajitha Manish, Chartered Accountant for the appellant.
Shri J.M. Kishore, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:25/04/2016 Date of decision:25/04/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appeal is filed against the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the rejection of refund claim.
2. The appellants filed refund claim under Notification No.17/2011-ST dt. 01/03/2011 for refund of service tax paid on specified services used for authorized operations in their SEZ units. The main ground for rejection of refund claim was that invoices are not in the name and address of SEZ unit and that invoices were not produced. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the findings of the original authority with regard to issue of time-bar and that of invoices not in the name and address of SEZ unit. With regard to other issues viz. production of documents / original invoices etc., the matter was remanded to the original authority. It has to be put on record that this practice of remanding some issues and upholding some issues without any clarity in the operation part of the order creates lot of difficulty to the assesses. It causes confusion in adjudication at Tribunal level because some issues remanded are pending before the original authority. The operative portion of the order does not render any clarification as to what is the amount/invoices which are remanded. Such practice of remanding some issues without any clarity in the operative portion of order is deprecated.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel submitted that they have received notice for personal hearing with regard to the issues remanded. Further, the counsel submitted that they have furnished all revised invoices and necessary documents to establish their case. They did not get sufficient time to produce before the original authority. The lower authority was not able to examine these revised invoices and documents produced. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for remand to the original authority to reconsider the refund claims. The original authority shall re-examine the refund claim taking into consideration the Circular No.142/11/2011-ST dt. 18/05/2011. The original authority shall re-examine the refund claims as far as possible along with the matter that has been already been remanded by Commissioner(Appeals) and taken cognizance by the original authority.
4. In the result, the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
3