Affiliated Computer Services Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 03 to 06-2010 dated 10/02/2010 passed by CCE,C&ST(Appeals), Cochin]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES OF INDIA PVT LTD VISMAYA BUILDING, INFORPARK, KAKKANAD, COCHIN Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax COCHIN-CCE NULL C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar, CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp.Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, BANGALORE - 560041 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 12/06/2015

Date of Decision: 12/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No.21328-21331 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

The rebate claims filed by the appellant have been rejected and the rejection order is under challenge in all the 4 appeals. Accordingly, all the 4 appeals are taken together and a common order is passed.

2. On the last occasion, when the matter was heard, the appellants were directed to produce a certificate from the bank that the FIRCs issued by them relate to the appellant unit at Cochin only and accordingly today when the matter was called, appellants have produced the certificate issued by the bank as well as a Chartered Accountant certificate stating that FIRCs relate to the exports made by the unit in Cochin only and the bank account relate to the company. The rebate claims have been rejected on the ground that in the FIRCs, name of the company was mentioned as Affiliated Computer Services of whereas the name of the exporter was Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd. Apparently the lower authorities felt that there could be another unit by name Affiliated Computer Services and another company by name Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd. During the hearing, my attention was also drawn to the certificate wherein the name of the company is shown as Affiliated Computer Services of. Obviously this has happened because the number of characters provided for the first line ended at this level. In any case, in view of the fact that the appellants have produced the certificates from the bank and Chartered Accountant and further rebate claims, in any case, to be sanctioned by the original authority as submitted by the learned CA, the matter can be remanded to the original authority to verify the documents and sanction the rebate claims. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the purpose. Needless to say if any proposal to reject the rebate claims or part of the claims, the appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before doing so.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.

3