Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Arvind Ltd vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-Ii on 1 March, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : ST/186-188/2010 (Arising out of OIA-50-52/2010/AHD-II/CE/CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 22/01/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-II) M/s Arvind Ltd. : Appellant (s) Vs C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 01.03.2017 ORDER No. A/10588-10590/2017 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra These three appeals are filed against respective orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had claimed refund of service tax paid on goods exported for the period January 2008 to September 2008 under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 29.10.2007, as amended. Show cause notice was issued on 06.02.2009, proposing rejection of the refund claims on various grounds, including on the ground that the appellant had availed drawback under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected their Appeals also on the ground that they had availed drawback of service tax paid on the specified services under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Hence, the present appeals.
3. Ld. Advocate Shri S. J. Vyas for the appellant submits that they could able to collect various orders, evidences under the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby it could be established that they had not availed drawback of service tax paid on the specified services used in the export of goods, on which refund had been claimed by them during the relevant period. However, he has fairly accepted that these communication/evidences were not placed before either of the authorities below being collected subsequent to the impugned Order. He prays that the matter maybe remanded for consideration of these evidences and pass an appropriate Order.
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present case is whether the appellants are entitled to refund of service tax paid on the goods exported during the relevant period under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 29.10.2007 as amended. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at para 8 of the impugned order has observed that since the appellant had availed drawback of service tax paid and thus falls under the exclusion Clause (e) of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 29.10.2007 as amended, hence, not eligible to the refund. Prima-facie, I find that the communication/evidences placed by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant on record indicates that the specified services did not find place in the All Industry Drawback Rates issued by the Ministry from time to time. These documents/evidences, were not placed before the authorities below, hence it could not be examined and ascertained whether drawback was claimed or otherwise. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to examine relevant communication/evidences and ascertain the fact whether the appellant had availed drawback on the specified services on which refund of service tax is claimed. Needless to mention all issues are kept open.
6. In the result, the impugned Orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
1Appeal No. ST/186-188/2010