Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd on 20 July, 2012
IN THE ,CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, FKCCI COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 56009.
DATE OF HEARING : 20/7/2012
DATE OF DECISION : 20/7/2012
Customs Appeal No. 1721 of 2010
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 100/2010 dated 11.5.2010,
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Customs, Appellant
Bangalore.
Vs.
M/s Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR) for appellant Mr. Raju, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) ORDER No..Dated 20/7/2012 This is an appeal filed by the department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 100/2010 dated 07.5.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The respondent filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,66,809/- for the period from July 2008 to September 2008 under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006 issued under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 2,26,253/- but disallowed a sum of Rs. 40,556/- relating to service tax on CHA with the following findings :
6. The claimant has sought refund of Rs. 40,556/- on service tax on CHA for clearance of goods. As submitted by the claimant vide their letter dated 06.7.09 these charges are incurred towards payment to CHAs for clearance of finished goods at place of removal. It is evident from the submissions of the claimant that the bills are addressed to Mumbai H.O. and they have not produced any Input Service Distribution invoices issued by their H.O. to enable them to avail credit on the services billed on their head office at Mumbai as required under Rule 4 (2) of Service Tax Rules. Hence they are not eligible for credit of Rs. 40,556/- being service tax on CHAs for clearance of finished goods at place of removal. I therefore hold that the claimant is not eligible for the refund of the said credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal.
4. Both sides agree that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not deal with the issue regarding non-production of Inputs Service Distribution invoices from the head office of the respondent. Both sides seek remand of the order to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the ground on which the original authority had rejected the claim, it is deemed appropriate to accept the unanimous request of the both sides. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the both sides.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court) (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) /vc/