Ambiguity on Correct Jurisdiction for Second Appeal: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Filed as Precautionary Measure [Read Order]

The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), dismissed an appeal filed as precautionary measure for ambiguity caused regarding correct jurisdiction for filing second appeal.

The appellant, Amadeus Software Lab, is engaged in the export of software Development services to its parent company located in France, which is classifiable under Information Technology Software Services (ITS Services). The appellant has been regularly claiming refund of unutilized cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services received and entirely used in the export of ITS Services under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012.

The company has also filed separate applications in Form ASTR-2 for claiming rebate of tax paid as Swachh Bharath Cess (SBC) on input services received and used in providing services exported outside India under Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 03/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016 for the relevant period.

The applications filed were rejected by Assistant Commissioner, wherein the claim of rebate of tax was rejected on the ground that since refund includes rebate of duty, the rebate claims have to be filed within a period of one year as per under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant submitted that the revision applications were filed subsequent to the filing of the above 6(six) appeals before this Tribunal as a precautionary measure owing to the ambiguity regarding correct jurisdiction for the second appeal in the matter.

The appellant has prayed to condone the filing of second appeal before two different appellate forums and to allow them to withdraw the above appeals filed before the Tribunal.

A Single Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising Pullela Nageswara Rao, Technical Member concluded by noting that “The request of the appellant for the withdrawal of the appeals is allowed and the 6(six) appeals filed are dismissed as withdrawn.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates