Cst Bangalore vs California Software Company Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 182-2011 dated 03/03/2011 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? 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

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

Versus

CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE COMPANY LTD NULL Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/03/2015

Date of Decision: 19/03/2015

CORAM:

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

Final Order No. 20804 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that Commissioner should not have remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority.

2. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. Learned AR submits that in certain cases, the Commissioner has taken a view that there is nexus and the refund is admissible and in some case he has not allowed on the ground of nexus.

3. I have considered the submissions. As regards the lack of power to remand conferred on Commissioner(Appeals), this Tribunal has been taking a consistent stand that in the case of refund claims when the refund matters are remanded for quantification, the Tribunal can remand the matter without further sending it back to the Commissioner(Appeals). The decision taken by the Commissioner(Appeals) on merits in respect of services has to be implemented at the time of finalizing the refund claim by the original authority.

4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for quantification of the refund claim and payment of the same as per the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). This order is being passed in the non-availability of the representation of the respondents. In case, respondents have filed appeal and that is pending, it is left to the original authority to implement the order of Commissioner(Appeals) or avoid decision on partys appeal.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.

3