Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

E/27867/2013-SM, E/27868/2013-SM, E/27869/2013-SM, E/27870/2013-SM

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 330/2013 dated 11/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore ( Appeals-I) ] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 331/2013 dated 11/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE ( Appeals-I) ] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 332/2013 dated 11/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise , Bangalore ( Appeals-I) ] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 335/2013 dated 15/07/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore ( Appeals-I) ]

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

Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd. No.14/1 & 15/1, Maurthi Industrial Estate, Phase II, Hoody Village, Whitefield Road, Bangalore  560 048 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore  560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate #67/78, Kubera Comforts No. 3, First Floor, Amruthnagar B Sector, Dasarahalli Main Road, Bangalore  560 092 For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 23/01/2015 Date of Decision: 23/01/2015 CORAM:

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

Final Order Nos. 20135-20138 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

In all the four appeals the issues involved are same. The refund claims filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 have been rejected on the ground that the appellants should have taken Input Service Distributor Registration since they have two units in the same compound. Further a portion of the demand has also been rejected on the ground that there is no nexus between the input services and the output service. Very same issue in respect of the very same appellant had come up before this Tribunal earlier and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 22087/2014 dated 21.11.2014 had remanded the matter with an observation that a separate Input Service Distributor Registration is not required and as regards nexus the same can be examined afresh in the light of the decision in the Interim Order Nos. 79 to 152/2014 dated 18.09.2014 in the case of M/s. Apotex Research (P) Ltd. & Others. Following the precedent decision of this Tribunal, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the refund claims in terms of the observations hereinabove.

2. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submits that a portion of the refund claims have already been sanctioned and department has not filed appeal against those decisions. Therefore what has already been sanctioned need not be reconsidered by the original authority when the remanded issue is being reconsidered. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss