TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing its own interim orders, when they were yet to reach finality and the concerned appeals were still pending for final hearing? (b) Whether Tribunal is right in holding that even if 'Output service' is not taxable, Cenvat credit should not be denied and refund should be granted? (c) Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the refund claimed is within limitation, while ignoring the terms of Notification No.5/2006 CE [NT] dated 14.03.2006 and Sec.11 [b] of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (d) Whether Tribunal is legally wrong while holding that the assessee is eligible for refund, if the refund claims are filed within one year from the date of receiving export proceeds in foreign currency? (e) Whether Tribunal is right in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claims holding that the claims have been barred by limitation etc. Being aggrieved by the said Orders in original, the respondent preferred appeals before the Appellate Commissioner which were rejected by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its Final Order No. of 29.09.2014 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim in line with the observations made in the interim orders. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal passed the Final Order based on the Interim Order dated 19.09.2014. Nearly about....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made in Interim Order which is unheard and unknown in the field of law. Accordingly, he seeks to set aside the Final Order passed by the Tribunal and to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the two issues involved in this case are dealt extensively by the Tribunal while passing the Interim Order. At paragraph 6.12 of the Interim Order, it is categorically held that even though the software is not taxable service, service tax paid on input services is refundable. This view is taken by the Tribunal following the Judgment of this Court in the case of 'mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd., Vs. CST, Bangalore' rep....