9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as set-aside. Though, the rejection concurrently by the authorities below was also on the ground that GTA services were utilised on to and fro basis for the empty containers which is outside the purview of the exemption Notification in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb), this conclusion is seen to be contrary to the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Limited [2010 (11) TMI 364 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. However, since the concurrent findings on the bar of limitation aspect, are impeccable, no case is made out for appellate interference by us. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 55739 of 2014-SM - Final Order No. 50232 / 2016 - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - Hon ble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President For the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant s claim for benefits for the exemption notification on three grounds; (a) That the appellant failed to submit relevant copies of certain shipping bills alongwith its claim, as required under paragraph D and E of the Notification; (b) That the appellant claimed exemption on freight charges involving to and fro transportation; and (c) The claim is time barred in terms of para C of the notification. 3. The primary adjudicating authority therefore concluded that the appellant was disentitled to claim exemption of service tax amounting to ₹ 2,23,912/- for the period 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011; is liable to remittance of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, alongwith penalty of an equivalent amount as the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant have to file EXP-2 return on or before 15.04.2011 for the availment of benefit whereas the Appellant has filed the said return on 28.04.2011, delayed by thirteen days. I find that the Appellant is not disputing for delay in filing of the return but seeking relief to consider the issue on account of liberal interpretation of the exemption Notification. In this regard, I putforth the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. Sunder Steels Ltd. AIR-2005-SC-1307-181 ELT 154; in which it has held that the exemption notification has to be interpreted on its wording. No words, not used in the Notification, can be added . 5.8 In view of the above, I find that the claim for exemption is time barred the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
