Commr Of Service Tax, vs Mumbai I
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. Cross Objection No.
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal held that, under the proviso to Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, an appeal against a Commissioner (Appeals) order concerning rebate of service tax paid on the export of services, where the appeal was filed after the Finance Act, 2012 came into force, lies to the Joint Secretary (RA), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, and not to this Tribunal; the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to decide such an appeal and must transfer it to that authority.
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
Service Tax Stat Application No. Service Tax Appeal No. Cross Objection No. Appellant Respondent 92941/14 ST/85419/14 -
Commr of Service Tax, Mumbai I Planet Saffron.com India Ltd.
-
ST/89547/13
-
Planet Saffron.com India Ltd.
Commr of Service Tax, Mumbai I
-
ST/85419/14
-
Commr of Service Tax, Mumbai I Planet Saffron.com India Ltd.
-
ST/85419/14 91141/14 Planet Saffron.com India Ltd.
Commr of Service Tax, Mumbai I
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 359/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 16.09.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals IV), Mumbai I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?
Appearance:
Shri S.V. Apte, Advocate for appellant
Shri B.Kumar Iyer, Supdt. Commissioner (AR) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 24.07.2015 Date of Decision: 24.07.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
This stay petition and appeals are taken up for disposal together as the issue involved lies in a narrow compass.
2. Since the appeals themselves are being taken up for disposal the stay petition filed by Revenue is disposed of.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. Appelllant-assessee as well as Revenue are in appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No. 359/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 16.09.2013. The issue involved is regarding the rejection of part of rebate claim and sanctioning of part of the claim.
5. We find that as per the amendment to Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, appeal relating to grant of rebate of service tax on inputs or input services used for providing export services shall be dealt with the provision of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if these appeals which were filed after Finance Act, 2012 came into statute. These appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee as well as Revenue against Order-in-Appeal in 2013 and 2014 hence as per proviso to Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, an appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order on rebate of the amount paid on export of services needs to be filed with the Joint Secretary (RA), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Accordingly, we transfer the appeals to the Joint Secretary (R), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Cross Objection filed by appellant is also transferred.
6. Registry is directed to transfer copy of this order to Joint Secretary (R), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi for further action. (Dictated in Court)
(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 3
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