2015 (11) TMI 567 - AT - Service Tax

Philips Electronics India Ltd. Refund Appeal: Remand for Fresh Evidence Examination

Philips Electronics India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs

The case involved M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd. appealing the rejection of their refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for exporting ... Denial of refund claim - Export of services to parent company in Neatherlands - For export of services, Assessee utilized input services on which service tax was paid - Held 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. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for export of services.Analysis:The appellant, M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore, upholding the rejection of their refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax). The appellant, a unit located in STPI under the category of 100% EOU, exported services to their parent company in the Netherlands and claimed refund on the service tax paid on input services utilized for the export. The appellant's advocate argued that the impugned order did not consider their evidence establishing the export of services. The respondent's A.R. highlighted that the appellant failed to prove the export of services as per paras 12 & 13 of the impugned order.The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly examine the evidence presented by the appellant to establish the export of services to their parent company. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh examination of all evidence to be produced by the appellant. The appellant was directed to provide all evidence during a personal hearing to prove their case. The original adjudicating authority was instructed to decide the case within eight weeks after the appellant submits all evidence following the conclusion of the personal hearing. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to address the lack of consideration of evidence in the initial decision.