Msci Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Application No. ST/MA(ors) 1818/11-Mum APPEAL No. ST/441/11-Mum ST/CO/97/11-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RBT/153/2011 dated 6.4.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and 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?

====================================================== MSCI Services Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Respondent

Appearance: Shri. Rinky Jassija,C.A. for Appellant Shri. S.V. Nair, Supdt (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 19/08/2015 Date of Decision : 19/08/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This miscellaneous application is filed for bringing on record; documents indicating the certificate of foreign inward remittances. Since these documents go to the root of the matter the miscellaneous application allowed and the documents are taken on records.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. From the records it transpires that the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant only on the ground that appellant is unable to match the foreign inward remittances certificates, as the remittances certificates are for export of goods, while the appellant herein have exported services. We find that in our identical issue we have remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue by following the ratio let down by this bench in case of Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Service Tax Mumbai 2015 (37) S.T.R. 639. We reproduce the relevant paragraph no. 5. 5.?As regards the rejection of the refund claim amounting to ` 1.02 crores, the objection was mainly in respect of the FIRCs mentioning that the proceeds have been realised in respect of export of goods. Meanwhile, the said certificates have been corrected by the collecting bank and therefore, this objection would no longer be sustainable. However, the correct certificates were not available before the lower authorities when they rejected the claim and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the refund sanctioning authority for consideration of the revised FIRCs now obtained by the assessee-appellant from the collecting bank and after considering the same, refund shall be granted to the appellant as per law.

4. Since in an identical issue matter is remanded back for reconsideration, we remand this matter also for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as per the directions given by the tribunal and reproduced herein above.

5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority also will follow the principles of natural justice before coming to the conclusion.

6. Cross objection filed by the revenue is also disposed of.

(Pronounced in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No. ST/441/11-Mum