Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 14 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Appeal(s) Involved:
ST/2383/2010-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 35/2010 dated 11/08/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), 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? No
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
M/s TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD
BAGMANE TECH PARK, NO.66/3, ADJACENT TO LRDE, BYRASANDRA,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560093. Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax,
BANGALORE-LTU
100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS,
BANASHANKARI-III STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560085. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. S.K. Singh, Commissioner (A.R.) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 14/07/2015 Date of Decision: 14/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21568 / 2015 PER ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants claim for refund of accumulated and unutilized credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules stands denied on various grounds. Some of the grounds are that undertaking market survey for foreign entity does not amount to export of service. Further, the other objections raised by the Revenue for denial of refund are absence of certain facts from the concerned invoices, nexus of the service with their output service as also effect of invoices raised by the service provider paying in foreign currency.
2. Both sides agree that such a battery of objections had been raised by the Revenue in number of appeals. The Tribunal passed an Interim Order Nos. 79 152/2014 dated 18.9.2014, expressing the views on each and every objection raised by the Revenue. The learned advocate also draws our attention to an earlier Final Order No. 21794 21798/2014 dated 26.9.2014 passed in the appellants own case involving identical refund dispute pertaining to the earlier quarter where the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in the light of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. For better appreciation, we reproduce paragraph 5 of the said order as under :
5. In view of the above, we find that the issues involved are all covered by the decision and the refund claims have to be considered in the light of the Interim Order and also verification of documents will have to be done in line with the observations in the Interim Order. Therefore the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority to consider the refund claims in accordance with the directions in the Interim Order passed by this Tribunal. Needless to say that if any part of the claim is proposed to be rejected, the appellants should be given an opportunity to present their case and this would include the question of interest also. It is made clear that the remand is mainly to determine the nexus and the defects in the documents. The learned counsel also made a request that a specific time limit should be laid down so that the issues are decided quickly since the amount involved is substantial and a long time has already been elapsed. The learned AR submitted that at least six months time may be given to decide the issue. We consider that six months is long enough to decide the issue and accordingly consider it appropriate that the lower authorities should consider the refund claims in detail and pass orders as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of this order.
3. In view of the above, both the sides pray for remand of the matter. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Interim Order and also in view of the observations made and directions contained in the Final Order in the appellants own case referred supra. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in open court) (ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /vc/