2015 (3) TMI 136 - AT - Service Tax

Quntification of refund claim - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that input services on which the refund of service tax has been claimed have been said to have nexus with the output services and has remanded the matter to the original authority for re-quantification with a direction to the lower authority to re-examine the rejected eligible input service - Held that - in all these cases, the matters have been remanded only for quantification of the refund amount and payment. The original authority according to the appellants had rejected the claims on the ground that there was no nexus between input services and output service and therefore he had not considered the quantum of refund admissible. In any case, the original authority can alone issue a cheque after quantification. Therefore, the matter will have to go back to the original authority for issue of cheque after sanction of refund. That being the position, in this case, even if the Commissioner does not have the power to remand, in our opinion since the Tribunal has the power, we can exercise such power and hold that the remand direction can be sustained and the matters can be treated as remanded by the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeals against setting aside of impugned orders by Commissioner (Appeals) for refund of service tax due to nexus between input and output services.

Analysis:
1. Adjournment Request: The Tribunal rejected the request for adjournment by the learned counsel for M/s Easiprocess Pvt. Ltd. as the issue was common to all appeals, and a decision had been made to proceed with the appeals collectively. For M/s C. Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and FCG Software Services India Pvt Ltd., as no one was present, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the matter as it could be finally decided.

2. Revenue's Ground for Appeal: The Revenue sought to set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the input services' nexus with output services was established for claiming a refund of service tax. The Commissioner had remanded the matter for re-quantification of the refund amount, which the Revenue contended was beyond the Commissioner's power.

3. Power to Remand: The learned A.R. argued that the Commissioner lacked the authority to remand the matter, leading to the Revenue's appeal for setting aside the orders. However, the Tribunal noted that the remand was solely for quantification and payment of the refund amount, as the original authority had rejected the claims due to the absence of nexus between input and output services.

4. Tribunal's Decision: Despite the Commissioner's alleged lack of power to remand, the Tribunal held that it could exercise such power. The Tribunal justified sustaining the remand direction, allowing the original authority to issue the refund cheque after quantification. The appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected as the challenge was on the Commissioner's remand power, not on the merits of the cases.

5. Final Decision: The Tribunal concluded that all appeals were to be rejected, and the original authority could proceed as per the Commissioner's decisions. Since the Revenue's challenge was not based on the merits but on the Commissioner's remand power, the Tribunal upheld the remand direction and allowed the original authority to handle the refund process accordingly.