Cst Bangalore vs Applied Materials India Pvt Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 69-2010 dated 16/02/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals-II), 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?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

CST BANGALORE NO. 16/1, S.P. COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, Appellant(s)

Versus

APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PVT LTD

Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

Shri Siddheshwar Yelamali, CA For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02/03/2015

Date of Decision: 02/03/2015

CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 20467 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the original authority to examine the nexus between the input and output services and consider the refund claim after verification of documents. Even though there is substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue about power of remand, this Tribunal has been consistently following the principle that in refund cases the matter can be remanded in view of the fact that ultimately the sanction of refund is to be made by the original authority, payment has to be made by him and it is always appropriate that the original authority verifies the documents and goes through the details since responsibility to ensure that the refund is sanctioned correctly is on the original authority. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order but utilizing the power of the Tribunal to remand, remand the matter to the original authority. I do so. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the refund claim afresh after considering the submissions which will be made by the appellant and respondent before the original authority. After the decision in this case, there have been several developments with regard to admissibility of refund and the original authority is requested to consider all such precedent decisions as well as other submissions that may be made by the assessee. At this stage learned CA also submits that in the appellants own case, a refund claim has been allowed by this Tribunal. Needless to say this decision also can be cited before the original authority who shall take that decision also into consideration.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.

2