9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 4/2005 (H-III) S. Tax dated 30-9-2009, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-III), Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case for consideration are - the appellants, M/s. India Cements Ltd., are registered with the Department for payment of Service Tax on services provided by their C F agents. They discharged the Service Tax liability during the period from 16-11-97 to 2-6-98. Consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharati v. U.O.I., reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 276 (S.C.) = 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.), the appellants preferred a refund claim for Rs. 27,79,216/- with the lower authority. The lower authority after due process, sanctioned the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und can be recovered by issuing Show Cause Notice and the said Show Cause Notice was issued in accordance with law. She drew our attention to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay back refund amount which has been sanctioned by the lower authority and paid to him on 23-2-2000. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had filed refund claim and after due process, the amount was sanctioned and paid to him. It is also not in dispute that the amount was not payable for the relevant period in question and the amount was paid by him voluntarily and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid and to have always been valid as if the said sub-clauses had been in force at all material times and accordingly, - (i) any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done at any time during the period commencing on an from the 16th day of July 1997 and ending with the day, the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President shall be deemed to be valid and always to have been valid for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done ; (ii) any service tax refunded in pursuance of any judgment, decree or order of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued within 30 days from 12-5-2000 (date on which the President gave assent). On going through the provisions of Section 117(ii), the Show Cause Notice for recovery of the said amount which has been refunded to the appellants, should have been issued on 11-6-2000. It is an admitted fact that the Show Cause Notice was dated 22-6-2000 and the same was served on the appellant on 24-6-2000. If it is so, we find that the Revenue has not issued the Show Cause Notice within the stipulated time limit. We also find that the reliance was placed by the Adjudicating authority only on Sections 116 and 117 of Finance Act, 2000 for recovery of erroneous refund. In this case, we find that the Revenue has not initiated steps to recover the amount which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
