Commissioner Of Service Tax Bangalore vs W.M. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 330 & 331/2010 dated 25/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 332 To 334/2010 dated 26/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mr. 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 Service Tax Bangalore 1st To 5th Floor, TTMC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Domlur Bangalore  560 071 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus

W.M. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Tower D, Diamond District, 150, Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore  560 008 Respondent(s)

Airbus Engineering Centre India (P) Ltd.

No. 301, 3rd Floor, Tower B, RMZ Infinity Campus, No. 3, Old Madras Road, Bangalore  560 016 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Appellants Mr. Sachin & Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocates Deloitte Centre, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bangalore  560 025 For the Respondents

Date of Hearing: 05/03/2015 Date of Decision: 05/03/2015 CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 20553-20554 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

In both the appeals issue involved is common and therefore both the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed.

2. In both the cases the Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority with a direction to consider the CA certificate which is required to be produced by the respondents as per the directions of the Commissioner and also sanction the refund claim if admissible. Otherwise he has decided the merits of the claims. Therefore what has been remanded is mere quantification, verification of documents and sanction or rejection of the claim on the basis of which action is to be taken by the original authority.

3. Even though Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to remand, when the appeal has come before the Tribunal, there is no point in sending back to the Commissioner since refund in any case has to be formally sanctioned by the original authority and payment has to be made by the original authority only. Under these circumstances even if the claim of the Revenue that the Commissioner does not have power to remand is allowed, ultimately the matter has to go back for payment of sanction of the refund. Therefore I consider that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the original authority with a direction to follow the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. I do so. In the result both the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original authority who shall proceed to decide the issue as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss