Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Zydus Technologies Limited vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad on 18 December, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/13974,13988/2014 (Arising out of OIA-AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-169-14-15 dated 02.12.2014 and OIA-AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-170-14-15 dated 04.12.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad) M/s. Zydus Technologies Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Advocate. For Respondent (s) : Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 18.12.2015 ORDER No. A/11870-11871/2015 Dated 18.12.2015 Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem Both the above mentioned appeals are on the same issue and hence they are taken up together for disposal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that this is the second round of litigation in both the matters. He submits that the matter pertains to two refund claims filed by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority, who rejected the entire claim in both the cases. The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed part claim and rejected the remaining part. The appellant therefore, moved this Tribunal against that part of the claim which was rejected the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal remanded the same to the original adjudicating authority vide Order No. A/10108-10114/2015 dated 05.02.2015 (OIA No. 104/2013/STC/SKS/Commr-A/AHD dated 05.06.2013 and OIA No. 165/2013/STC/SKS/Commr-A/AHD dated 31.07.2013). Meanwhile, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund for the amount allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the remaining part of the claims, the adjudicating authority did not take up the claims pertaining to the remaining amount. The appellant again approached the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they are eligible for the refund of part amount also. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned Order-in-Appeals held that since he had already rejected the remaining part of the claims in his previous order itself, he has no authority to re-hear the matter and declined to consider the plea of the appellants.
3. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the Tribunal has already remanded the matter pertaining to sanction of refund claim of remaining amount to the adjudicating authority vide order dated 05.02.2015 (supra), the impugned Order-in-Appeal should also be remanded. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that the matter has already been remanded by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2015 and therefore, there is no need to remand the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The adjudicating authority would consider the refund claim of the appellant for the remaining amounts as per the directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2015.
4. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, we find force in the arguments of the learned Authorised Representative for Revenue. The Tribunal has already remanded the matter pertaining to the remaining part of the refund claims to the adjudicating authority for consideration. We are sure that the adjudicating authority would comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 05.02.2015. However, it is observed that in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 05.02.2015, the impugned Orders-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) need modification to the extent that refund claim pertaining to the remaining amount which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the initial round of litigation, needs to be re-examined by the original adjudicating authority, as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2015 and we order accordingly.
5. The appeals filed by the appellant are disposed of on the above terms.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (P.M. Saleem) Member (Technical) .KL 4