9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Cess in respect of specified taxable services used for export of goods, find no infirmity in the impugned Order and the Appeals are dismissed. - ST/225-226/2010 - A/605-606/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 4-11-2010 - Shri S.S. Kang, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.P. Majumder, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order] . - Heard both sides. A common issue is involved in both the Appeals, therefore they are taken up together for hearing. 2. The Appellant filed these Appeals against the impugned Order whereby the refund of Education Cess in respect of the export service was denied. 3. Contention of the Appellant is that as per the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007, exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the appeal filed by the Revenue is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. I find that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC CE, Jammu v. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Others in Appeal No. E/A-342/09 vide Final Order dated 12-8-2009, after considering the decision in the case of Bharat Box Factory Ltd. (supra), held that in absence of any notification, refund of Education Cess is not admissible under Notification No. 56/02-C.E., dated 14-11-02. 6. The Appellant claimed the benefit of refund of Education Cess under Notification No. 41/07-S.T., dated 6-10-07; but in the said Notification, the refund of Service Tax is admissible only. In the case of Kamakhya Cosmetics Pharma. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), similar issue has come whether ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of whole of duty paid which includes cess also. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. also held the same view in respect of the Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. We find that the provisions of Notification No. 40/01-C.E. and 19/04-C.E. are not parallel to the provisions of the Notification No. 32/99-C.E. which is in dispute in the present case. The Notification No. 32/99-C.E. provides refund of basic excise duty or additional duty of excise which has been paid from the PLA whereas the Notification No. 40/01-C.E. and 19/04-C.E. provide rebate in respect of the whole of duty paid in respect of the exported goods. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable on the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
