9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 315 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim of CENVAT Credit 100% EOU filed cash refund under the provisions of Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) As per appellant the refund was allowed by ld. Commissioner on the same input services availed by them. Further, he has submitted that the he had not considered any of their submissions including the guidelines issued in Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 by the Board and the case laws. Held that - In view of the Circular of the Board No.120/01/2010-S dated 19.01.2010 and the case laws on the subject, the issue needs to be considered afresh. Hence, with the consent of both the sides, the matter is remitted back to decide the issue afresh, keeping in view the Circular and the relevant case laws, including the Orders passed by him.
Issues:
Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit for an export-oriented software unit under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. Analysis: The Appellant, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in software development and export, filed appeals against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting parts of their cash refund claims for accumulated CENVAT Credit. The Adjudicating Authority had sanctioned a major portion but disallowed specific amounts. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these rejections, prompting the Appellant to appeal to the Tribunal. The Appellant argued that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed refunds for the same input services in subsequent periods and failed to consider their submissions and relevant guidelines and case laws. The Revenue, represented by the ld. AR, supported the Commissioner's findings. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had merely upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decisions without adequately considering the Appellant's arguments and the relevant Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 by the Board and case laws on the matter. The Tribunal, with the consent of both sides, remitted the issue back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to review the matter in light of the Circular and case laws, including the Orders passed for subsequent periods. The Appellant was granted a hearing opportunity, and both parties could present evidence for consideration. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, keeping all issues open for further assessment. This judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of submissions, guidelines, and case laws in refund cases involving accumulated CENVAT Credit for export-oriented units. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh review by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.
|
