2007 (11) TMI 148 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate claim rejected on basis that it was not filed before correct jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner - Service Tax is being administered by the Central Excise Department and the Assistant Commissioners who are in the Service Tax Commissionerate are also Assistant Commissioners of the Central Excise - rejection of the claim on the ground that the appellants had not filed a claim be fore the proper Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is not correct matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdictional authority for filing rebate claim under Export of Services Rules, 2005.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.21 & 22/2007-ST passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Orders-in-Original and directed the appellants to file their rebate claim with the correct jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner. The appellants, who exported services, claimed rebate of tax paid on input services under Notification No.12/2005-ST. The Assistant Commissioner Service Tax rejected the claim, stating it should have been filed with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision without examining the issue on merit, directing the appellants to refile the claim with the correct authority for processing.

The learned Advocate argued that they fulfilled all conditions for the rebate claim and should be entitled to it. He highlighted a Trade Notice creating a separate Service Tax Commissionerate and argued that the Assistant Commissioner Service Tax should be considered the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for service tax purposes. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Service Tax is administered by the Central Excise Department, and the rejection based on jurisdiction was incorrect. They remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit within three months, allowing the appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the correct jurisdictional authority for filing rebate claims under the Export of Services Rules, 2005.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the correct jurisdictional authority for filing rebate claims under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim based on jurisdiction to be incorrect, considering the establishment of a separate Service Tax Commissionerate and the role of Assistant Commissioners in the Central Excise Department. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merit, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the designated authority for processing rebate claims under the relevant rules and notifications.