Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... vs Ge Medical Systems Pvt Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 151/2008/CUS(B) dated 28/11/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.]

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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-CUS C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD. NO-122. PART I, EPOP WHETEFIELDN BANGALORE 560066 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR)

For the Appellant

Mr. Feneel Shah, CA For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 13/02/2015

Date of Decision: 13/02/2015

CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 20314 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Refund claims filed by the appellants for Rs.5.25 lakhs have been rejected. The refund claims have been filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. In respect of certain services, claims have been rejected on the ground that there is no nexus between the final product manufactured and the input services. Further, in respect of certain services, the Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund claim and Revenue is in appeal on the ground that Commissioner (A) should not have allowed the claim in the absence of nexus between the final products and the services. The services on which refund was allowed are consultancy services and management services. In the cross objections filed, the appellant is contesting the refund rejected in respect of certain services as well as rejection on the ground of limitation. The original authority had rejected a portion of the claim on the ground that the time limit under Section 11B is applicable and refund would be admissible only in respect of claims attributable to services on which tax was paid after 12.6.2006. Both sides agree that all the issues have been dealt with in Interim Order No.79-152/2014 dated 29.8.2014 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CCE and also agreed that the matter has to be remanded to the original authority to examine the refund claim and calculate the admissible amount and pay the same in the light of the decision of the Tribunal rendered supra. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority, who shall proceed to examine the refund claims in the light of observations of this Tribunal in the decision cited hereinabove. Since many of the refund claims relates to the amount paid in 2006, the original authority is directed to ensure that the issue is decided within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to cooperate fully.

(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3