The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the rejection of the refund claim of service tax on the grounds of absence of ground in the show cause notice(SCN).
Capgemini Technology Service India Ltd, the appellant assessee was engaged in providing various taxable services defined under the Finance Act, 1994 and registered with the Service Tax Department.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax for rejecting the refund claim amounting to Rs.2,06,42,881/- in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT credit rules (CCR), 2004 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Prasad Paranjape, the counsel for the assessee contended that the show-cause notice had proposed for rejection of the refund claim in terms of Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, whereas the adjudication authority had rejected the refund benefit by applying Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules.
Piyush Bade, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the assessee was not eligible for a refund and the rejection was done as per the law and liable to be sustained.
The Bench observed that in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the court held that the ground taken in appeal according to the appellate order cannot travelled beyond the ground mentioned in the show-cause notice and here the Commissioner (Appeals) had traveled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and applied entirely the different rule for rejection of refund benefit in favour of the assessee and order cannot sustain for judicial scrutiny.
The two-member bench comprising Mohanty (Judicial) and Parthiban (Technical) quashed the rejection of the refund claim while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
