9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 960 - AT - Service TaxRefund of excess amount paid - GTA service - case of Revenue is that as per Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, when Cenvat credit has been taken or utilized wrongly, the same along with interest has to be recovered but in this case, the assesse did not pay the interest which he is liable to pay - Held that - there is no case of wrong utilization of Cenvat credit under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 as contended by the department and the respondent is not liable to pay any interest thereon - reliance placed in the case of Billforge Pvt. Ltd 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for service tax paid under Goods Transport Agency category. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting the appeal and upholding the order-in-original. The respondent, a manufacturer exporter of spices, filed a refund claim for excess service tax paid under the Goods Transport Agency category. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned the refund claim, which was later reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin Commissionerate. The department appealed before the Commissioner (A) against the Dy. Commissioner's order, while the respondent filed cross objections. After considering submissions, the Commissioner (A) rejected the department's appeal. The Revenue argued that the impugned order was contrary to the law and rules, citing Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, which requires recovery of wrongly taken Cenvat credit along with interest. The respondent's counsel defended the refund claim, asserting the entitlement to it. The Tribunal examined the contentions of both parties and found no infirmity in the Commissioner (A)'s order. The relevant findings of the Commissioner (A) were reviewed, emphasizing the correct sanctioning of the refund claim and the absence of wrong utilization of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted technical aspects raised by the department but held that the refund cannot be denied on technical grounds, citing a precedent. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a decision of the Karnataka High Court supporting the assessee's position. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld it by dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 16/11/2017.
|
