Cst Bangalore vs Toshiba Embedded Software (India) Pvt ...
- CitationAppeal No. 266-267-2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by CCE(Appeal), Bangalore]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded a matter to the original authority for sanction or quantification of a refund, the Tribunal, exercising its own powers, will uphold such remand so that the original authority, as the refund-sanctioning authority, implements the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order; a Revenue appeal contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to remand, and should instead have decided the matter after enquiry himself, is rejected on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 266-267-2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by CCE(Appeal), 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
TOSHIBA EMBEDDED SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT LTD NULL Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
Shry H.Y Raju, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 16/04/2015
Date of Decision: 16/04/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21117 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand but after making enquiry should pass an order. In this case, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) had remanded the matter to the original authority to quantify the eligible refund amount in respect of services considered as eligible for refund by him after the production of Chartered Accountant certificate by the respondent.
2. In all cases where Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matters for sanction of refund or for quantification of refunds, this Tribunal has been consistently held that in such cases the Tribunal in exercise of its own powers remanded the matters to the original authority so that the refund sanctioning authority which is the original authority can proceed to implement the orders of Commissioner(Appeals). Accordingly in this case also, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and the original authority is directed to implement the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). (Operative part of this order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
2
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