Cce Pune I vs Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal6 July 2015

CitationAppeal No. ST/85910/15

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The stay petition is dismissed and the appeal is transferred to the Joint Secretary (R), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, because, under the proviso to Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the rebate of service tax paid on export of services lies to the Joint Secretary (R) and not to this Tribunal, so the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Application No. ST/S/93410/15 in Appeal No. ST/85910/15

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-161-14-15 dated 20.01.2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),Pune II)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

CCE Pune I Appellant Vs.

Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri Vinay Jain, C.A. for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 06.07.2015 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran This stay petition is filed by Revenue for staying operation of the impugned order.

2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we dismiss the stay petition and take up the appeal for disposal.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding sanctioning of rebate claim filed by the respondent. Respondent had filed rebate claim before the adjudicating authority for refund of an amount paid as service tax on export of services which was rejected. The first appellate authority has reversed the order-in-original and granted rebate to the respondent; as per proviso to Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended an appeal against Commissioner (Appeals)s order on rebate of the amount paid on export of services needs to be filed with the Joint Secretary (R), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Accordingly, we transfer the appeal to the Joint Secretary (R), Department of Revenue, Min. of Finance, for further action.

4. Stay petition and appeal are disposed of.

(Dictated in Court)

(Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk ??

1 2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free