TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 412/2020 dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. The brief facts are M/s. Samsung India Software Operations Pvt., Ltd (Presently known as Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited), the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department to provide "Information Technology Software Services (ITSS)". The appellant is a 100% EOU registered with Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) and engaged in providing 'ITSS' to their overseas / foreign client viz. M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Korea. The appellant receives certain services in their unit and takes CENVAT credit of service tax paid on such services. The appellant filed 5(five) refund claims under Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules, 2005. Aggrieved by the above Orders-in- Appeal No. 856 to 860/2014 dated 17.12.2014, the appellant preferred an appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT (Bangalore). The Hon'ble CESTAT (Bangalore) vide Final Order Nos. 20543-20553/2019 dated 16.07.2019 read with Miscellaneous Order Nos. 20079-20089 dated 12.03.2020 set aside the Orders-in-Appeal No. 856 to 860/2014 dated 17.12.2014 and remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). In deference of said Hon'ble CESTAT Order, the appellant filed appeals with Commissioner (Appeals) vide Appeal Nos. 187 to 191/2020 A-1. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Orders-in-Appeal no. 408 to 412/2020 dated 29.10.2020 ('impugned order') allowed the appeals by the way of setting aside the Orders-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fails to deal with it, such an issue would be said to have arisen out of order of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal would be within its power to adjudicate such issue; in this regard, relevant extract of the said Judgement is reproduced below; "The matter was highly contested before the CIT (A) which is apparent from the written submissions of the assessee dated March 15, 2001 before the CIT(A), copy of which appears at pp. 7 and 9 of the paper book. However, CIT(A) had chosen not to deal with such issues in his order dated March 30, 2001. In view of the above facts, we hold that the issue regarding time-barring assessments arises from the order of the CIT(A), dated March 15, 2001, and the Tribunal is within its powers to adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal would be within its powers to adjudicate the same. 9. The learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that; in the subject appeals the matter involved is on legality of interest claims and does not involve any factual aspects and grant of interest on the said refund claims; alternatively, if the same is not allowed requests to provide a specific direction to the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) where the said refund claims are pending under appeal stage which was filed on March 28, 2013 to grant interest along with refunds under appeal; they would furnish any additional information and/or documents that may be required in this regard. 10. The learned Authorised Representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating authority vide Orders-in-Original No. 06 to 10/2021(R) dated 22.06.2021 rejected the refund claims. I find that the appellant during the hearing on 25.06.2025 before this bench has submitted that against the denovo adjudication order they have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), however the details were not submitted. Therefore the appellant was informed to submit the details of the denova adjudication proceedings. The appellant vide letter dated 27.11.2025 submitted the copy of the denova adjudication Order-in-Original No. 23/2024-25/AC(R) dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, wherein the Adjudicating Authority has rejected all the 5(five) impugned refund claims. 13. I find from the copy of the ....