9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid towards that service. For the purpose of verification of the record regarding the payment of service tax and interest, the matter is remanded to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of refund. - E/20014/2018-SM - Final Oder No. 20670/2018 - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Pradyumna G.H. Advocate- For the Appellant Shri Parashivamurthy, Dy. Commissioner(AR)- For the Respondent Order Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 09/10/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund claim mainly on the ground that the issue had attained finality and hence refund could not be claimed. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not Sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the binding judicial precedent as well as without properly appreciating the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(I) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that the during the course of audit, the appellant were persuaded to pay an amount of ₹ 3,58,688/- towards CENVAT credit availed on the courier services and interest of ₹ 2,11,823/- totaling to ₹ 5,70,61 1/- and the said amount was paid on 25/08/2014. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not dispute the eligibility to CENVAT credit as courier service has been consistently held as input service by various decisions of the Tribunal. Further I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has only rejected the refund on the ground that the appellant has voluntarily paid the said amount without protest. Since the appellant has filed the refund claim within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the rejection of the refund claim is not sustainable in law and therefore I hold that appellants are entitled for refund of the excess amount paid on courier services along with interest which the appellant has paid towards that service. The learned counsel did not insist for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
