TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue to lack of jurisdiction and the Department's appeal was allowed by way of remand to the original authority. Since the facts are identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the provision of IT and ITES services and were registered with Large Tax Payers (LTU) Unit during the disputed period while holding a centralized registration. Appellant set up Software Technology Park (STP) units across the country for providing services to customers outside India and has obtained approval from STPI authority for carrying out various operations in STPI unit. For carrying out the operations, appellant had procured imported good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 13.2.2013 was issued to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, LTU having jurisdiction over all the STPI units of the appellant proposing to reject the refund claims. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice. Before passing of Order-in-Original, appellant opted out of LTU scheme with effect from April 1, 2014 as permitted by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated April 24, 2013 against Writ Petition No.17293/2013. Subsequent to exit from LTU, all the refund applications were transferred to the respective jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over respective licenses. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated July 2, 2014 to the show-cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judicial precedent. He further submitted that in total, appellant filed seven refund claims on 28.1.2013 with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU Bangalore because at that time, appellant was operating under centralized LTU Bangalore jurisdiction. He further submitted that in the impugned show-cause notice no allegation regarding lack of jurisdiction was made. Upon exit from the LTU i.e., after filing reply to the show-cause notice, appellant was issued with Corrigendum to show-cause notice directing the appellant to file reply to Jayanagar Division in respect of refund matters pertaining to Jayanagar. However, the appellant was given no other opportunity to get its refund claims adjudicated under proper jurisdiction. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available if the said goods are not used for the intended purposes and same is diverted without using the same for the intended purposes. b. The Board Circular No.74/2001 issued to safeguard such diversion and the wording used in paragraph 2 and 3 of the said circular 'ultimately used for the intended purposes' and 'only in the case of the failure to utilize the good' makes it clear that only in such case the deemed export benefits need to be paid back. c. Certificate issued dated August 27, 2013 issued by Additional Director, STPI, Bangalore takes care of the requirement of the Circular No.74/2001. d. Goods have been used by assessee for the considerable period of more than 5 years and de-bonded after obtaining permission from STPI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etrospective since it expands the conditions of the 2001 Circular. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur: 2007-TIOL-09-SC-CX which held that a beneficial Circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular have to be applied prospectively. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that when the appellant opted out from LTU, the LTU does not have power to decide the refund claims of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is required to file refund claim to various jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner where the manufacturing unit is established. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and....