Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Atc Tires Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/40098/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.TNL-CEX-OOO-APP-236-13,dated30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
M/s. ATC TIRES PVT. LTD.
APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri R. Srinivasan, Cons.
For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 10-03-2016 FINAL ORDER NO.40481/2016 The only dispute of Revenue in the present case is that the word Unit has been inserted into the list of declared services (ref:p.18 of the paper book of the appellant) appended to the approval granted by Development Commissioner for availing the same either service tax free or pay such tax and get refund thereof being a SEZ unit. It may be stated such benefit is also extended to SEZ developer. This insertion raised doubt as to whether the appellant as a Unit is allowed to avail the services enumerated in the list.
2. While appellant prays to grant refund on above count, Revenue denies the same.
3. To resolve the dispute between the parties, it would be proper for Adjudicating Authority to make a verification from the records of the Development Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the word Unit was an insertion by that authority in the public record. If he is satisfied about the lawful insertion of the word Unit in the approval list there shall not be any difficulty for him to grant the refund envisaged by Notification No.17/2011-ST, dated 01.03.2011. It may be stated that only the services prescribed should be considered for grant ofrefund and not beyond that.
4. Learned consultant for the appellant further says that apart form above issue there is one more issue of service of the CHA availed. The invoice raised shows name of the mediator who brought the appellant and service provider to the loop.
5. Revenue disputes that the invoice was not raised by service provider but by a mediator. But appellant says that the services covered by invoices have been used by the appellant which is not doubted by Revenue.
6. Record reveals that the services was meant for SEZ Therefore, the appellant is entitled to appropriate credit on this count also and refund, if any, admissible shall be given to them. It is expected that the learned Adjudicating Authority shall complete the refund process within three month of receipt of this order.
7. In the result, the appeal is remanded only on the limited count as above to the Adjudicating authority and remanded to the extent directed above. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 14-03-2016 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 10.03.2016 Draft Order - Date of typing 14.03.2016 Fair Order Typing 14.03.2016 Date of number and date of dispatch 18/03/2016 4 ST/40098/2014