9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.21 & 22/2007-ST dated 26-2-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Shri C. Sivadass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. 3. We heard both the sides. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Orders-in-Original passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, that the input service was not really related to the claim and that they failed to fulfill the conditions prescribed in the Notification No.12/2005-ST. However the Assistant Commissioner with whom the rebate claim was filed, rejected the rebate claim on the ground that he is not the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and in terms of the Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, I Division, Bangalore and process the claim for sanction in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 read with the Govt. of India Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19-4-2005 and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the issue on merit. 5. Shri G. Shivadass, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise for all service tax purposes. We find great force in the argument of the learned Advocate. When a separate Service Tax Commissionerate has been formed, it is not understood, why the rebate claim should go to the Assistant Commissioner of the Central Excise. The learned Departmental Representative drew our attention to the Notification No. 12/2005-ST wherein it is clearly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
