Sitel Operating Corporation India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No 61-2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order rejecting the appellant's claim cannot stand where the refund claim turned on whether a nexus between the input service and the output service was shown, and the same nexus question has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in a prior decision that both sides accept as governing; in such circumstances the matter is to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the nexus issue in the light of that prior decision and the other authorities cited before it, and the impugned order is set aside to that extent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 61-2010 dated 11/02/2010 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?
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?
SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA LTD #18, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, PULIKESHINAGAR P.O., BANGALORE Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Akbar Basha, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 09/01/2015
Date of Decision: 09/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20067 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The issue involved is the claim for redemption fine filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The refund claim has been rejected on the ground that appellant has not been able to show that there is nexus between input service and the output service. Now there are several decisions on the very same issue and this Tribunal had also considered those decisions as well as the issue of nexus in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. and others [2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG]. Therefore both the sides agree that the matter should be remanded to the originaladjudicating authority to reexamine the issue in the light of law laid down in the Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd and others case as well as other decisions cited therein and that may be cited by the appellants before the adjudicating authority. In view of the observation above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority.
(Operative part of this order pronounced in the court on conclusion of the hearing)
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