2017 (10) TMI 803 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner(Appeals) to remand - Refund of unutilized CENCAT credit - Held that - the power of Commissioner to remand a matter has been upheld by decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TIRUNELVELI Versus RAMESH ENTERPRISES 2010 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that in service tax matters, Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remand under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has only remanded the matter to requantify the refund amount - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals by Revenue against common impugned order for refund quantification.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals by the Revenue against a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for quantification of refund. The respondent, engaged in export of Business Auxiliary Services, filed refund claims for unutilised CENVAT credit on input services. The Order-in-Original partly sanctioned the refund and rejected claims on certain input services. The Commissioner(Appeals) modified the order, allowing refund on additional input services and directed quantification based on facts and documents. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner lacked the power to remand the matter and questioned the nexus between input and output services. The respondent argued that the impugned order considered all material and relied on Tribunal decisions supporting the Commissioner's remand power.

The Revenue argued that the impugned order contravened statutory provisions and lacked clarity on the sanctioned refund. They disputed the direction to quantify refund based on a Chartered Accountant certificate certifying nexus. The respondent, however, maintained that the impugned order was well-founded, citing Tribunal decisions and the High Court's ruling on the Commissioner's remand authority. The High Court decision highlighted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has the power to remand cases, supported by various provisions. The judgment emphasized that the Commissioner's power to pass orders as deemed fit includes the authority to remand, as established by legal precedents.

The consultant for the respondent argued that the original authority quantified the refund post-remand as per directions and provided evidence of refund sanctioning. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the legal precedents, concluded that the impugned order was valid. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's power to remand the matter for refund quantification, citing precedents and dismissing the Revenue's four appeals. The judgment affirmed the legality of the impugned order and the Commissioner's authority to remand cases, in line with established legal principles and prior decisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order remanding the matter for refund quantification, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The judgment affirmed the Commissioner's power to remand cases, supported by legal precedents and established legal principles.