Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Fcg Software Services India Pvt Ltd (Now ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 16 March, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/340/2011-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 585-2010 dated 08/11/2010 passed by CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? 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? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? FCG SOFTWARE SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD (NOW M/S. COMPURTER SCIENCES CORP.INDIA PVT LTD) II AND III FLOOR, TOWER 3, SJR -1 PART, EPIP ZONE-1, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Lakshmi, Advocate 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 Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 16/03/2015 Date of Decision: 16/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20740 / 2015 Per : B.S.V. MURTHY The issue involved is whether the decision taken by the lower authorities in respect of 4 input services that they have not nexus with the output services and therefore refund claim is not admissible is correct or not.
2. Learned counsel submits that in respect of 17 services, the Commissioner(Appeals) had allowed their claim on merit and had remanded the matter and an appeal filed by the Revenue came up for consideration before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20307-20314/2014 dt. 11/03/2014 had remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the claim. She submits that the present appeal also can be remanded to the original authority to consider in the light of the precedent decisions relating to the input services and output service that have been rendered subsequent to the decision taken by the original authority in 2008. The learned AR has no objection.
3. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority with a request to decide the admissibility of refund in respect of all the services. Since the refund claims relate to the year 2008, the request made by the learned counsel that there should be a direction to the original authority to decide the refund claim is reasonable. Accordingly, the original authority is requested to ensure that adjudication process is completed and refund admissible is sanctioned within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order by the original authority. The appellants are free to submit a copy of the order to the original authority to ensure the refund claim is decided expeditiously.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
3