9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods Transport Agency (GTA). The appellant have filed a claim for refund of excess service tax paid to the department to the extent of Rs. 11,62,015/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand and Fifteen only) on 31.03.2008 on the ground that they have paid service tax on the goods transport inadvertently on 100% of the freight charges without availing the benefit of abatement of 75% of freight under Notification No. 32/2004 ST dated 03.12.2004. Following the principles of natural justice, the lower authority passed the impugned Order-in-Original No. 47/2008 dated 25.06.2008 wherein the appellant's refund claim was rejected for the period Jan. 2005 to April, 2006, May 2006 to March 2007 as hit by limitation of time as stipulated under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the evidence on record and also by ignoring the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that in the present case the appellant paid the service tax erroneously on 100% of the freight charges instead of paying service tax on 25% of the freight charges by availing exemption of 75% of the freight charges under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification 01/2006 dated 01.03.2006. He further submitted that the exemption was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and benefit of Notification 12/2003 ST and sales exemption of 75% of the freight charges were not available to the service receiver under Notification 32/2004. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CBEC Order No. 5/1/2007 ST dated 12.03.2007 b. Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2015 (40) STR 804 (T-Del.) c. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Patna 2013 (29) STR 524 (T-Kol) d. Radhu Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad 2016 (41) STR 574 (T) 3.1. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner in appeal has observed that the appellant has not filed the necessary document as to how service tax on 25% of the gross amount was arrived at whereas the fact of the matter is that appellants have s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the decisions cited supra, I find that the refund claim is not hit by limitation of time as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. Further I find that the declaration contained in the rubber stamp affixed on the bills and consignment notes issued by the GTA are valid declaration by the GTA and it satisfies the requirement of the notification because in the notification no specific format has been prescribed for the declaration and it is only the CBEC Circular dated 12.03.2007 which prescribed such kind of endorsement. I also find that the instruction issued by the CBEC is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
