9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l that there is no consistency in the view taken by the departmental officers. Moreover, in this case, there is clear direction to the concerned officer to dispose of the refund/rebate claim within one month. We also find that after the receipt of the order of this Tribunal on 16.09.2014, no steps were taken to implement the order of this Tribunal till 28.10.2014 and no explanation is given for that. In these circumstances, the conduct of the concerned official is not appreciated but in the interest of justice, the time of 15 days is granted to the learned Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai to dispose of the refund claim - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/87213/2014 - Misc. Order No. M/1843/2014-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner to dispose of the refund/rebate claim within a period of one month from the date of receipt of that order. The matter came up for hearing on 23.09.2014 wherein the learned AR stated that as the order dated 21.08.2014 has been received by the department on 16.09.2014 only and as per the order they have to implement the order of this Tribunal within one month and as the time of implementation is not yet over, he sought adjournment. In the circumstances, the matter was adjourned was called the learned A.R submitted that the Revenue is intending to file an appeal against the order of this Tribunal and for filing appeal they need some more time and sought adjournment in the matter. The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal passed on 14.07.2014 and on 21.08.2014. Today, when the matter was called, a report was received from the learned Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai III and enclosing letter dated 28.10.2014 to the appellant seeking certain documents to scrutinize the refund claim of the appellants. The queries which were raised in the order is that (a) Of unjust enrichment (b) Of challans and invoices (c) Of copies of the FIRC to tally with the invoices. 3.1 In these circumstances, time of two months was sought by the learned Commissioner to implement the order of the Tribunal. On receipt of the report, the learned Counsel for the appellant took strong objections to the report filed by the learned Commissioner. 3.2 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Also the issue unjust enrichment has been decided by the Tribunal vide Order no. A/31-39/14/CSTB/C-I dated 18.12.2013 at para 5.2 which is reproduced herein-under:- 5.2 Since the transaction is one of export, the principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to export transactions as specifically provided in Section 11B. For the remaining two queries he drew our attention to the order-in-original particularly in para 1 wherein the adjudicating authority has recorded as under:- The said claimant has submitted the following documents in support of their claim. - Application for refund in Form ASTR-1' - Photo copy of register for Output Services rendered for the relevant period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of March 2010 to September 2010. On perusal of the invoices it is seen that date of invoices are after 27.02.2010; however, the services have been provided during the periods prior to 27.02.2010. As discussed in the above paras, services provided by the said claimant prior to 27.02.201, do not qualify as export of services in terms of circular no. 141/10/2011-TRU dated 13 May 2011. Hence the amount liable for rejection on this ground comes to ₹ 2,96,24,391/-. 3.4 Therefore, he submits that all the relevant documents are available on record and have been considered by the lower authorities earlier. In these circumstances the learned Commissioner is gaining time by one reason or the other and not sanctioning the refund to the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the interest of justice, the time of 15 days is granted to the learned Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Mumbai to dispose of the refund claim, from today itself failing which this Tribunal shall be constrained to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the erring officials. 5. Considering that the claim is having a bearing of interest on the amount of refund, therefore, the authorities have to take expeditious steps to sanction the refund claim to keep in mind the interest is to be paid from the kitty of the general public. The copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, CBEC, Secretary (Rev), the Ministry of Finance and the Hon'ble Finance Minister for necessary consideration. 6. The matter to come up for further proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
