Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 15 September, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21722 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/28843/2013 in ST/28184/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/28184/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2013 dated 18/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad] Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Pioneer Towers, Plot No. 16, Survey No. 64/2, Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500 081 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-IV Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad - 500 001 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Feneel Shah, Authorized Rep. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, The Millenia, 6th Floor, Tower D, #1 & 2, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 For the Appellant Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 15/09/2014 Date of Decision: 15/09/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant wishes to withdraw the stay application filed by them since it has been held that such stay application cannot be considered. However on going through the records and going through the issue, we find that the issue involved is what should be the relevant date for considering limitation in respect of refund claims made on export of services. This issue has already been decided by this Tribunal and is no longer res integra. The learned CA fairly agrees that he would find out the relevant order and produce it before the original authority so that the matter can be adjudicated afresh. Further we also take note of the fact that in any case the Commissioner (Appeals) has already remanded the matter. It is also a fact that Commissioner has no power to remand and nevertheless he has remanded. In any case we consider that in view of the fact that issue as to whether what should be the date for the purpose of limitation in case of exports was pending before the Tribunal and has been decided recently, it would be appropriate that original authority considers all issues in accordance with law and decides the matter afresh. With these observations the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 15.09.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss