TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceed to deal with the appeals. 2. The respondents in these appeals, barring M/s. e4e Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No. ST/2374/2010), had filed claims for refund of various amounts of unutilized CENVAT Credit availed on 'input services' which were used in or in relation to export of 'output services'. The original authority, in some cases, rejected the refund claims in toto holding that the services which were claimed by the parties to be input services did not have any nexus with export of output services. In other cases, the original authority found some of the services to be 'input services' and granted refund partly. In any case, the refund-claimants were aggrieved by the decision of the original authority and hence prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for rebate under Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005. The original authority rejected the claim in toto , but the appellate authority allowed the rebate subject to production of certificate of Chartered Accountant in support of the declaration filed by the party. In this case, the original authority has to sanction rebate if the claimant produces Chartered Accountant's certificate regarding the quantum of the claim already declared by them. 4. In the above scenario, we have got to consider the grounds of the Revenue's appeals. The appellant has uniformly contended in these cases that the orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are without jurisdiction in the absence of power of remand. In support of this contention, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lveli Vs. Ramesh Enterprises - 2011 (21) STR 603 (Tri.-Chennai) and therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue in these appeals is not valid. According to them, the impugned orders are liable to be sustained. 6. Learned consultant for M/s. e4e Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who claimed rebate, submits that the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has only to be upheld because, according to him, it was not a 'remand' and was only a direction for requantification of rebate on the basis of Chartered Accountant's certificate to be produced by the party. Learned consultant therefore opposes the ground raised by the Revenue in the relevant appeal. 7. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and arguments. Obvio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are, essentially, remand orders. As rightly contended by the learned JCDR, the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) is not empowered to make an order of remand under subsection (5) of 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 as held by the Tribunal in the case of Orient Crafts Ltd. (supra) . No overriding, binding decision to the contra has been placed before us. Therefore we are constrained to set aside the relevant orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), which are under challenge in the aforesaid two appeals of the Revenue. However, we find that the reason found by the Commissioner (Appeals) for directing the lower authority to reexamine the issue of nexus between the output services and the ser....