9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 28 - HC - Service TaxRectification of mistake - refund claim - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & M/s. SCIOinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Mere perusal of Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules, would, inter alia, show that where a service provider, provides an output service, which is exported, without payment of service tax, he would be entitled to refund of cenvat credit, as determined by the formula provided in the Rule - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeals against Tribunal's order dated 08.11.2016, absence of two appeals in cause list, dismissal of rectification application by Tribunal, necessity to challenge the said order, judgment dated 10.04.2017 in C.M.A.No.860 of 2017, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2016, rendering subsequent order inefficacious, disposal of appeals with no order as to costs. The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to appeals challenging the common judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 08.11.2016. It was observed that, apart from one appeal, the other two appeals were not listed in the cause list. The counsel for the Revenue confirmed that all three appeals contested the same order of the Tribunal. The appellant had also filed a rectification application with the Tribunal, which was rejected on 21.2.2017. The Court noted that the said order should have been challenged as well. However, considering that the issues from the main order dated 08.11.2016 were already decided against the Revenue in a previous judgment dated 10.04.2017 in C.M.A.No.860 of 2017, titled Commissioner of Service Tax-III v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another, the Court decided to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2016. The Court emphasized that since the main order had been overturned, the subsequent order had become ineffective. Consequently, the captioned appeals were disposed of accordingly. It was further mentioned that there would be no order regarding costs in this matter. The judgment was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J., and R. Suresh Kumar, J., with Mr. K. Jayachandran representing the Appellant and Mr. A.P. Srinivas representing the Respondents.
|
