Commissioner Of Service Tax ... vs July Systems And Technologies Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 144/2013 dated 25/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-II), SERVICE TAX - 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? Yes 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-SERVICE TAX 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

July Systems and Technologies Pvt. Ltd No.17/4c, 4th Floor, Maruthi Chambers Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, BANGALORE - 560027 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 13/05/2015

Date of Decision: 13/05/2015

CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 21142 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the learned Commissioner (A) has erred in passing the order since the decision in the Order-in-Appeal does not pertain to the appeal filed by the assessee and the issue considered in the show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original.

2. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent.

3. Heard the learned AR.

4. In this case the show-cause notice has proposed to demand the CENVAT credit paid by the respondent on various services on the ground that there was no nexus between the input services and the output service provided by the respondent. The original authority considered each input service and came to the conclusion that out of the demand for Rs.14,25,029/- proposed in the show-cause notice the assessee is not eligible for CENVAT credit of Rs.12,78,068/- and this was demanded with interest and he also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. However, surprisingly and strangely, the learned Commissioner (A) considered the whole issue as a claim for refund made under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and considered each and every input service and came to the conclusion that appellant is eligible for the refund and remanded the matter. A case for demand of CENVAT credit got converted to a claim for refund and was allowed. I find substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since the Order-in-Appeal has not considered the subject correctly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (A) for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent to present their case.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 3