Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune on 29 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO.E/960/09-MUM [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. P-I/VSK/159&160/2009 dated 25/6/2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Pune I] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
======================================================= M/s. Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellants VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune :
Respondent Appearance Ms. Payal Naher with Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 29/5/2015
Date of decision: 29/5/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. P-I/VSK/159&160/2009 dated 25/6/2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Pune I, wherein Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority and set aside the appeals filed by the appellant.
2. The issue involved in the present case is the refund claim of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007 on various services. Initially the appellant claimed refund of Rs. 14,17,798/- subsequently appellant themselves revised their claim which stand reduced to Rs. 8,39,324/- however original adjudicating authority while passing order, recorded this revision of the claim but surprisingly rejected the claim of the entire amount initially claimed for Rs. 14,17,798/-.
3. Ms. Payal Nahar, Ld. Counsel alongwith Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel at the outset submits that the present appeal is against the Common order in appeal dated 25/6/2009 however against the same order two appeals were filed and in one appeal including other appeals bearing number E/427,428/09 MUM, this Tribunal vide order No. A/667 to 669/10/SMB /C-IV dated 25/11/2010 disposed of by the way of remand.
4. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
6. I find that since against the same order-in-appeal, appeals of present appellant have been allowed by way of remand vide order No. A/667 to 669/10/SMB /C-IV dated 25/11/2010. This appeal also deserves to be disposed of by way of remand. I therefore remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority with the direction that same may be re-adjudicated taking in view the observations of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal taken in order No. A/667 to 669/10/SMB /C-IV dated 25/11/2010. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 2