9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding Government Agencies for Agricultural Purposes. The appellant engaged one sales agent namely M/s R. K. Agencies located at Lucknow. By taking the service of the said M/s R. K. Agencies, they sold hybrid seeds to Government of U. P. - Agricultural Marketing Board. The said agent - R. K. Agencies raised their invoice for services rendered and also charged Service Tax under the head of "Business Auxiliary Services". The appellant paid to the said agent, the service charges, along with the Service Tax. The said agent - M/s R. K. Agencies deposited the tax with the Government Exchequer and disclosed the said turnover in their ST-3 Returns. Thereafter, appellant came to understand that Service Tax was not payable on the said transaction i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25th March, 2013 and the refund claim had been filed on 21st April, 2014, the same was not within a period of one year. M/s R. K. Agencies, Lucknow had deposited the tax/refund amount by way of Service Tax liability voluntarily and itself assessed by filing the ST-3 Returns which stood finalized, ipso- facto. 4. It is also observed in the impugned order - in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Versus Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.), wherein it had been held that the assessment cannot be challenged by way of subsequent claim of refund. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue relied on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I am satisfied that there was no appealable order in the facts of the present case and as such the ratio of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable and have been wrongly relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of Service Tax, wrongly paid through, M/s R. K. Agencies, Lucknow. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits and the impugned order is set aside. I further direct the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
