9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... locus standi to file the same. The authorities took the view that the appellant is not covered under provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act to prefer a refund of Service Tax paid by another service provider. The aspect pertaining to merit as well as time bar and unjust enrichment has not been gone into. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the Service Tax had been paid by M/s. Biju Sales Corporation which had collected the amount from them and they had borne the burden of the said amount and had not passed on to another per son. They produced the balance sheet to satisfy their claim. They contended that no Service Tax was leviable on consignment sales obtained prior to 9-7-2004 and Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this regard, the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 182 (S.C.) has also been noted and followed the finding recorded in 3.2 and 3.3 is reproduced herein below. 3.2 Both the lower authorities had decided the issue questioning the locus standi of the appellants. They had not examined the entire issue on the basis of the facts on record. The lower authority has stated that the Department is in no way concerned with the appellant, as they are not the 100% EOU registered with them. The goods on which duty had been recovered by the Department had been manufactured by the appellant. In fact, the appellants had cleared the goods to M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. free ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken could not cooperate with the appellant in order to have better relations with the Customs. While communicating that duty had been paid, M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., in their letter dated 21-8-2001, informed the appellant that the entire amount of duty, interest and penalties if any, will be deducted from SPCL bills. Further, they had also enclosed a certificate to the effect that the amount of duty along with interest had been remitted by them on behalf of M/s. S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. From these documents, it is evident that the duty incidence on the impugned goods had been borne by the appellants, who are also the manufacturers of the goods. From the records, it is clear that the appellants had borne the duty burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. IDL Chemicals Ltd . case. The locus standi question has to be decided on the facts of each case. Just be cause the appellant is not a licencee in the jurisdiction of the Deputy Com missioner, it cannot be held that he has no locus standi . Further, Section 11B was amended in 1991 providing for filing refund claim even by a purchaser. It is evident that a purchaser does not pay Central Excise duty directly to the Department. Yet, when he has borne the burden of Excise duty which is not actually payable, law provides that he can also claim refund from the Department. However, in the present case, the person claiming re fund is the manufacturer who cleared the goods on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
