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>Tribunal rejects Revenue's appeal on refund claim admissibility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Quintiles Technologies India Pvt. Limited</h3> Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Quintiles Technologies India Pvt. Limited - TMI Issues Involved:Admissibility of refund claim for unutilised credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 15.07.2014, which remanded the appeals for re-quantification of refund claims by the appellants after deciding the issue on merits as per an earlier order dated 04.02.2014. The Revenue argued that the order of 04.02.2014 passed by the Bench was not accepted by the department, and an appeal against it was filed before the Gujarat High Court. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have remand powers, and thus, the order should be set aside.On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the order of 04.02.2014 had been upheld by the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal Nos. 1239 to 1244 of 2014 under an order dated 13.01.2015, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as meritless. The issue at hand revolved around the admissibility of the refund claim for unutilised credit as per Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, along with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The earlier order of 04.02.2014 had favored the appellants on this issue, and the Gujarat High Court upheld this decision on 13.01.2015, which was after the filing of the appeals by the Revenue.After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal concluded that once the issue had been settled by the jurisdictional High Court in favor of the appellants, the appeals filed by the Revenue no longer had merit. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were rejected, with a direction for the adjudicating authority to quantify the refund amount in the remand proceedings as directed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal issued this decision, emphasizing the finality of the High Court's ruling on the matter.
TaxTMI 