TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Overturns Orders; Remands Cases for Reassessment of Service Links and Refund Claim Limitations.</h1> <h3>CCE, BANGALORE Versus HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PVT. LTD.</h3> CCE, BANGALORE Versus HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PVT. LTD. - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 326 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Stay applications filed by the department for impugned orders2. Refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services for export of output services3. Consideration of Board's Circular No. 120/1/2010 by lower authorities4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) for remand of cases5. Nexus between input services and output services6. Requirement of Chartered Accountant's certificate for refund claims7. Applicability of limitation to refund claims8. Tribunal's decision on limitation for refund claimsAnalysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal received applications from the department seeking a stay on the impugned orders. The Tribunal decided to dispose of all appeals involving identical issues, whether by the department or the assessees, after rejecting the stay applications.2. The assesses had filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services related to the export of output services. The original authority rejected some claims, while partially granting others. Some parties were aggrieved by the rejection of refund claims as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matters to the original authorities for reconsideration.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that lower authorities did not consider the Board's Circular, directing them to reevaluate the nexus between services and output services in light of the circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the cases for fresh decision.4. The department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to remand cases, citing Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments. The Tribunal agreed that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power of remand but decided to remand the cases based on the valid reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals).5. The Tribunal noted that the issue of nexus between input and output services was crucial. The cases were remanded to the original authorities for re-examination, emphasizing the need for Chartered Accountant's certificates and compliance with the Board's Circular.6. The requirement of a Chartered Accountant's certificate for refund claims was highlighted, along with the necessity for all parties to be given a fair opportunity to present their case and for original authorities to consider objections regarding time-barred claims.7. The Tribunal clarified that parties could cite relevant case law on the applicability of limitation to refund claims and would be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their claims.8. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all appeals by way of remand, directing the original authorities to re-examine the nexus between input and output services, consider Chartered Accountant's certificates, and provide a fair opportunity for all parties to present their case.
TaxTMI 