Philips Electronics India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 457-458-2011 dated 23/12/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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?

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

Philips Electronics India Ltd Philips Innovation Campus, Manyata Tech Park, Nagavara, Bangalore 560 045 Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-iv PB 5400 CR BUIDING...QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. B.G. Chidanand, Adv For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 08/09/2015

Date of Decision: 08/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21879 / 2015

Per : ASHOK KUMAR ARYA

The appellant namely M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd. Bangalore has filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore wherein the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax) has been upheld rejecting the refund claims of the appellant in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The learned advocate to the appellant Shri B.G. Chidananda URS pleads that they are a Unit located in STPI under the category of 100% EOU. They have exported the services to their parent company in Neatherlands. For their export of services, they had utilized input services on which service tax was paid. On this service tax they are entitled to refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Learned advocate mentions that the impugned order did not consider their evidences for establishing the fact of their export of services. On a query regarding their refund claims if any filed earlier; whether they were accepted, he submits that he is not aware of any earlier refund claims filed.

2. The learned A.R. for the respondent refers to paras- 12 & 13 of the impugned order saying that the appellant has not been able to prove the export of their services to their parent company.

3. Considering the fact that Commissioner(Appeals) has not examined and actually considered the evidences produced to establish the fact of export of services made to the parent company of the appellant, the case is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to examine all the evidences which are to be produced again by the appellant, if not produced earlier before him and he will decide the refund applications fresh. The appellant has to be given full opportunity as personal hearing to produce all the evidences to prove their case.

4. The original adjudicating authority is to decide the case within eight weeks after the appellant submits all the evidences as personal hearing is over. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in above terms. (Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

pnr

2