Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 September, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Appeal(s) Involved:
E/375/2010-DB, E/376/2010-DB, E/960/2009-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 51-2009 dated 30/11/2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 30-2009 dated 06/08/2008 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL 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?
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
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD
BAGMANE TECH PARK,NO.66/3, BANGMANE TECH PARK, ADJACENT TO LRDE, BYRASANDRA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE
Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU
100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS,
BANASHANKARI-III STAGE,
BANGALORE, - 560085
KARNATAKA
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. Shivadas & Mr. L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocates V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & V. SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM . BANGALORE - 560 055 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. R. GURUNATHAN. A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 01/09/2015 Date of Decision: 01/09/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21815-21817 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both sides in all the three appeals, we find that the appellants refund claim in terms of the provisions of Rule-5 of CENVAT Credit Rules stands rejected primarily on two grounds. The first ground is that the appellants output services were not taxable prior to 16.05.2008 and as such, they would not be entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit and the second ground is that marketing support services were being provided in India and as such cannot be held to be export of services.
2. We find that both these issues are covered in favour of the assessee by an earlier order of the Tribunal in their own case being Final Order No. 21794-21798/2014 dated 26.09.2014. By referring to an earlier interim order No 79-152 dated 29.08.2014, the Bench held in favour of the assessee but remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining the Refund claims afresh. The Tribunal further ordered in the earlier matter that the refund claims may be verified and decided within a period of six months from the date of the order.
3. However on being questioned, learned advocate submits that even in the earlier remand order, the refund claims have not been sanctioned inspite of a period of one year having been passed. However, as the issue involved in the present three appeals is identical to the issue involved in the earlier order of the Tribunal, by adopting the same, we remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination in the light of the observations made in the earlier order. We direct the original adjudicating authority to process the refund claims involved in the present appeals as also in the earlier order of the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of this order and if not done, the appellant shall be at liberty to file an application before the Tribunal for non-implementation of the order. All the three appeals are disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court) ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 2