D.N. Panda, J. - (1.)AGAINST objection of Registry requiring this appellant to deposit fees on the basis of quantum of refund the appellant being aggrieved requested the Registrar to place the matter before the Bench for appropriate order. An application addressing to the Registrar was filed on 11 -12 -2012 in that behalf. On 13 -12 -2012 it was mentioned before the Bench that there is an anomaly in charging filing fees by the Registry in respect of appeal involving refund. On such mention, registry was directed to make a compilation of the orders of the Tribunal, if any, on the subject. The Dy. Registrar instead of placing note before the Bench placed his decision by his order on 24 -12 -2012. We do not understand the reason why the Dy. Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction to pass an order. We expect that in future no order by Dy. Registrar except providing a note on the subject to be placed before Bench for guidance.
(2.)WHEN the matter was listed before the Bench on 1 -2 -2013 at the request of the appellant it was adjourned to 18 -2 -2013 so to ascertain whether the Bench has jurisdiction to hear an appeal relating to rebate dispute arising under Finance Act, 1994 against an order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The matter came up before the Bench subsequently on 18 -2 -2013. On that day Revenue's prayer was to grant time to get instructions of the higher authorities. Matter was accordingly adjourned to 25th February, 2013.
When the matter came up on 25 -2 -2013 Revenue submitted that Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 had under gone amendment by Finance Act, 2012 in 2012 budget making application of provisions of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1994 to the Finance Act, 1994 for administrations of law relating to service tax under Finance Act, 1994.

(3.)IT was submitted on behalf of Revenue that by virtue of provisions contained in Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944, jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted to entertain an appeal relating to claim of rebate on input service used in export of service since appeal on such issue under Central Excise Act, 1944 is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Thus by virtue of amendment to Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 rebate claim appeals are not maintainable in Tribunal but shall be subject to Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority. According to learned D.R. first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 refers to certain nature of orders appearing under first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 against which redressal is allowed before revisionary jurisdiction appointed by the Central Government. Powers to assign the revisionary Jurisdiction is vested with the Central Government and such jurisdiction is to be read into Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 for redressal against rebate claim on input service used in export of service. Consequently, Tribunal fails to have jurisdiction to hear the rebate issues which is subject to revisionary jurisdiction under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with first proviso to Section 35B(1) thereof.