9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man, Member (T) [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -1. These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.21 22/2007-ST dated 26-2-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Shri C. Sivadass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. 3. We heard both the sides. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Orders-in-Original passed by the lower authority and directed the appellants to file their rebate claim with the correct jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner for processing the claim. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the order of the lower authority, he directed the appellants to prefer the claim with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise who may treat the date of filing of the claim as on the date when it was originally filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, I Division, Bangalore and process the claim for sanction in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 read with the Govt. of India Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19-4-2005 and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the issue on merit. 5. Shri G. Shivadass, the learned Advocate argued that they had fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the notification and they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire scheme of things. Therefore in our view then there is a separate Commissionerate for Service Tax and when the various jurisdiction of the officers have been notified, the 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. In these circumstances, the rejection of the claim by the lower authority is not correct. In view of the above observation and in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision on merit within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the open court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
