9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioned the refund claim as per this Bench final order No. A/767/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 06.5.2011. Adjudicating authority did not allow the payment of interest on the delayed payment of refunds on the ground that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable for the purpose of service tax under the Notification No. 17/2009-ST. 3. Learned consultant would submit that the appellant has undoubtedly exported the goods which were manufactured and cleared by them and input stage service tax credit had been claimed by them. It is his submission that since the lower authorities had not refunded the amount to them in time, they were eligible for the interest as provided in the notification, after expiry of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Act. It is his submission that Notification No. 41/2007-ST does not contemplate for payment of interest. 5. I have considered the submission made at length by both sides. All the three appeals are in respect of only non-payment of interest to the appellant on the amount of refunds, which were belatedly sanctioned to them. 6. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant is eligible for the refund and this view was held by the first appellate authority, whose orders were challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed their appeal. The question of payment of interest is only in respect of those refunds which were sanctioned belatedly. I find strong force in the contention raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for stuffing is not admissible. I am unable to understand how goods can be stuffed in a container without bringing the empty container from elsewhere. In any case the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/645/WZB/AHD/09, dated 27-2-2009 and reported in 2009 (02) LCX 0057. This amount should have been allowed. As regards port services, the refund has been rejected on the ground that the service provider was not authorised. This cannot be the basis for rejection. What is required for the verification is whether service tax was paid for rendering port services or not. If the service tax was paid for rendering port services, having accepted the amount of service tax paid towards port services and hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am surprised that this aspect has not been verified before rejecting the refund claim by both the lower authorities. The discussion above would show that the lower authorities appear to have not taken care to verify and record the facts correctly and have also not applied statutory provisions correctly. In the interest of justice, the impugned orders are required to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority who I hope at least will take pains to verify the facts, correctly record them and also apply the statute correctly to the facts of the case. Since the matter involves refund in respect of export of goods, this work has to be done expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
