9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (A) who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the original authority and the original authority in de novo proceedings has partially allowed the refund claim and partially rejected the refund only on the ground that the appellant s two units situated at Hyderabad and Pune are not registered in Bangalore, therefore, refund claim filed in Bangalore is not maintainable on account of jurisdiction. Further, after the centralized registration, any refund claim pertaining to the appellant will lie only in Bangalore because all the records are available at Bangalore and there is a centralized accounting system being followed at Bangalore. There is no force in the contention of the learned AR saying that the records pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lifies as Export of Service under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant had filed two refund claims. The said refund claims were partially sanctioned by the original authority and partially rejected the same. The details of both the claims are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Refund claim rejected ST/20227/2019 October 2011 to March 2012 Rs.31,87,395/- ST/20228/2019 April 2011 to September 2011 Rs.30,41,619/- During the claim period, the appellant had three separate service tax registration i.e., at Bangalore, Hyderabad and Pune. The appellant claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside only on this ground that it has traversed beyond the show-cause notice. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions. Saci Allied Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut: 2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC) Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-III: 2003 (160) ELT 273 (Tri.-Bang.) Vikram Jain vs. CC: 2006 (205) ELT 735 (Tri.-Bang.) Bhagwati Silk Mills vs. CCE, Surat: 2006 (205) ELT 182 (Tri.-Mum.) Philips India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2005 (191) ELT 1028 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.1 He further submitted that the appellant is a 100% EOU and has exported its services during the refund period and the same is evident from the copies of the service tax returns submitted along with refund claim application. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the CESTAT, Bangalore held that where CENVAT credit taken are verifiable from the documents available with the assessee, denial of refund merely on the ground that refund relates to period prior to registration may not be justified. The learned consultant further submitted that once the appellant has got the centralized registration of Bangalore, all the claims pertaining to the appellant would lie in Bangalore jurisdiction. Further, after the centralized registration is granted, the registration of Hyderabad and Pune are deemed to be cancelled. He also submitted that the Hyderabad and Pune jurisdiction will not entertain any refund claim after the grant of centralized registration as per the Rules of Centralized registration. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interpreted. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Principal Commissioner of Service Tax vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (45) STR 5 (AP) CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal : 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant which is a 100% EOU and is engaged in export of service to its group companies located outside India and the service rendered by the appellant qualifies as Export of Service under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further, I find that the appellant filed refund claim pertaining to accumulated unutilized CENVAT credit which was initially objected to by the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts in support of the refund claim but both the authorities without examining the record have rejected the refund claim merely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, which according to me is not tenable under law; that too once the appellant has obtained centralized registration and has filed the refund claim after obtaining the centralized registration. Therefore, the grounds on which refund has been rejected is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original authority for examination and verification of the documents pertaining to refund and thereafter, grant refund in accordance with law. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed by way of remand. (Order was pronounced in Ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
