Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Service Tax- I on 24 March, 2023
Service Tax Appeal No. 826 of 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 826 of 2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 102/2010-ST (Commr.)
dated 24/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central
Excise and Service Tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore. )
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS
(INDIA) PVT LTD
BAGMANE TECH PARK, Appellant(s)
66/3, ADJACENT to LRDE
BYRASANDRA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR
POST, BANGALORE- 560 093.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax
BANGALORE SERVICE TAX- I
1ST TO 5TH FLOOR,
TTMC BUILDING, Respondent(s)
above BMTC BUS STAND, DOMLUR BANGALORE - 560 071.
KARNATAKA APPEARANCE:
Ms. Sudeshna and Mr. Shashank, Advocates (LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN), for the Appellant. Shri K. A. Jathin, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE Dr. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mrs. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 20243 / 2023 Date of Hearing: 24/03/2023 Date of Decision: 24/03/2023 Page 1 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 826 of 2011 Per : DR. D.M.MISRA This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No.102/2010-ST (Commr.) dated 24.12.2010.
2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for the period June 2008 to December 2008 under Rule 5 of CCR,2004. Since the said refund claims were held to be not admissible, consequently, admissibility of CENVAT credit on the input services availed by the appellant was also questioned by way of issuance of show-cause notice for the said period on 16.2.2010 proposing denial and recovery of CENVAT credit availed to the tune of Rs.17,22,83,178/-. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present appeal is filed.
3. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant submits that on filing cash refund claims of accumulated CENVAT credit due to export of services for the respective quarters, during the period 2008-2009, 2009-2010; along with rejection of the said refund claims, show-cause notices were also issued proposing recovery of CENVAT credit availed on various input services alleging inadmissibility of same on various grounds as narrated in the show-cause notice. She submits that the ISSUE OF admissibility of refund claims for the period April 2008 to June 2008 has reached before this Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority vide Final Order No.21794-21798/2014 dated 26.9.2014 by this Tribunal for de- novo adjudication in line with the observation made in the said Order. Consequently, the Commissioner has re-adjudicated the said refund claims and sanctioned cash refund of Rs.2,44,51,227/- after rejecting a miniscule amount of Rs.48,413/- vide de novo order No.220R/2017 dated 01.5.2017. She further submits that the the present demand notice is for the period June 2008 to December 2008 of which June 2008 Page 2 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 826 of 2011 was covered under earlier Order and from July 2008 to Dec. 2008 covered under the subsequent order of this Tribunal passed on 14.7.2015 remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication of the refund claims in the light of the order passed by this Tribunal earlier. She further submits that the Commissioner is yet to adjudicate the admissibility of refund for the period July 2008 to December 2008. She prays that since the present appeal relates recovery of CENVAT credit for the same period, hence it may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the same along with the pending de novo adjudication of the refund claims.
3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue does not dispute the facts submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant. He has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider along with the refund claims pending de novo adjudication almost for the same period.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that after filing cash refund claims of the accumulated CENVAT credit by the appellant during the relevant period, proceedings were also initiated simultaneously proposing denial of CENVAT credit and its recovery by way of issuance of show-cause notice more or less on the same grounds on which refund claims were proposed to be denied. We find that this Tribunal in its order dated 26.9.2014 examined the very same grounds of objections of the revenue on the admissibility of cash refund claims of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of service and remanded the matter after recording the principles to be followed in deciding the refund claims. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said Order of the tribunal refund claims were adjudicated and allowed to the appellant vide de novo order dated 01.5.2017 which covers one month of the present demand notice i.e., June 2008. The learned advocate submits that for the subsequent period, this Tribunal following the earlier order dated 26.9.2014 Page 3 of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 826 of 2011 remanded the issue for de novo consideration. However, the same is pending adjudication. In these circumstances, the submissions for remanding the matter to consider the demand notice along with refund claims pending de novo adjudication before the Commissioner seems to be relevant and appropriate. Consequently, following the earlier two orders dated 26.9.2014 and 14.07.2015 of this Tribunal, we remand the present demand proceedings to the Commissioner to consider the same along with the refund claims for the period July 2008 to December 2008. Needless to mention Appellants may be given an opportunity of hearing to present their case. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court on 24/03/2023.) (Dr. D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv...
Page 4 of 4