Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 24 September, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 21813-21814 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: ST/2544/2012-DB, ST/2545/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 149/2011 dated 31/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 150/2011 dated 31/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd. C-1,'Jacaranda Wing-A, Manyata Embassy Business Park Outer Ring Road, Nagavara Post, Bangalore - 560 045 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-Service Tax 1st To 5th Floor, TTMC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur Bangalore 560 071 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Prasad Paranjpe, CA PDS Legal 14, Mittal Chambers, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021 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: 24/09/2014 Date of Decision: 24/09/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY Even though there were several objections raised in the order-in-original for rejecting the refund claim, the Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the claims of the appellant considered only the fact that there was no correlation between FIRC and Export Service invoices and on this ground rejected the refund claims. Further it was also submitted that, both the lower authorities have travelled beyond the show-cause notice namely the purpose of remittance has been mentioned as advance against services which does not refer to details of export service invoices and description in invoices used as software development, service fee for the month of May etc. and details of export invoices are not appearing on the FIRCs.
2. The refund claims involved are for the period from April 2009 to September 2009, October 2008 to March 2009. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we consider that the matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a clear direction that the examination of refund claim would be limited to the issues taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to FIRC only. In respect of other issues there is no observation by Commissioner and in the absence of any appeal by the Revenue, such issues cannot be reopened. Therefore both the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to original adjudicating authority with a direction to examine the issue relating to FIRC in the light of our observations in the Interim Order No. 79 to 152/2014 dated 18.09.2014 in Apotex Research (P) Ltd. and others.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss