Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Envoy Mortgage India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 May, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1993/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 197/2012 dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Envoy Mortgage India (P) Ltd. No. 15-6-302/13, 1st Floor, Gold Finch Complex, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, 7th Floor, Trade Centre, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore 575 003 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 06/05/2016 Date of Decision: 11/05/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20321/2016 Per: S.S. GARG This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 197/2012 dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mangalore in terms of which he has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2011 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a private limited company registered under the Companies Act 1956. They are engaged in providing IT enabled services in terms of Mortgage banking, back office and other support services relating to loan processing in terms of verification of title, deposit, employment, mortgage, insurance and other data entry support services to their parent company in USA as per their agreement entered into with parent company and all these support services are classifiable under the taxable service Support services of business or commerce. Since the services are exported outside India and the consideration is received in foreign currency, in terms of Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 the said services are exported without payment of service tax. In order to provide the services which are exported, the appellant utilized various input services such as security agency service, telecommunication services, renting of immovable property services, cleaning services, chartered accountant service, manpower recruitment service etc. In this background the appellant filed 3 refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 as detailed below:
Sl. No. Date of filing refund claim Period Refund of input ST claimed 1 29.03.2010 April 2008 to March 2009 Rs. 3,38,960/-
2 18.05.2010 April 2009 to Sept 2009 Rs. 1,81,156/-
3 18.05.2010 October 2009 to March 2010 Rs. 2,46,592/-
Total Rs. 7,66,708/-
2. The department directed the appellant to file all the above refund claims in format prescribed vide Circular dated 19.01.2010 and thereafter appellant resubmitted all the refund claims on 22.03.2011. The refund claims filed by the appellant sought to be rejected on the ground that the same are time-barred taking into consideration the date of filing the refund claim as 22.03.2011, the refund claim filed is hit by limitation as specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and the document as contemplated in Notification No. 5/2006 were not produced and finally that the appellant has filed the refund claim on half yearly basis instead of quarterly basis. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant filed 3 appeals numbering ST/1994/2012, ST/1995/2012 and ST/1993/2012 as all the appeals had arisen out of the common impugned order of the Commissioner dated 11.04.2012 but out of the 3 appeals 2 appeals numbering ST/1994 & 1995/2012 were disposed of by this Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 26765 & 26766/2013 dated 11.10.2013 vide which this Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for determination of the admissible refund amount and payment of the same to the appellant in accordance with law. In this regard it is pertinent to reproduce the order of remand which is contained in para 6 of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by this Tribunal which is reproduced herein under:
In view of the above discussion, both the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remanded for determination of admissible refund amount and payment of the same to the appellant in accordance with law and in accordance with the conclusions reached above. Needless to say the appellants shall submit the relevant documents, if not already submitted and the original adjudicating authority shall give reasonable opportunity to the appellants if the refund claim is proposed to be rejected.
3. The learned counsel also submitted that this case should also be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority in view of the remand matter pertaining to 2 other appeals. The learned AR also accepted the stand of the appellant and prayed that this appeal should also be remanded on the same terms and conditions in which the other 2 appeals as stated supra have been remanded. Therefore in view of the above I set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mangalore and remand the matter in terms of the remand order stated supra. The present appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on )
(S.S.GARG)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss