9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Mumbai. Jurisdiction being preliminary issue should have been considered at the first instance before the merit of refund was to be adjudicated upon but the Learned Asst. Commissioner (Refund-II) Service Tax-I Mumbai preferred to give his findings on both without any show cause notice was issued to the appellant indicating his intention to reject such refund claim - the legality of the order concerning non-maintainability of the refund claim at Mumbai and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable. Other grounds of rejection of refund were also dealt with out of which appellant had accepted the time barred claim of ₹ 43,399/- which has been abandoned by it as revealed from page no. 17(1) of its appeal memo. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised in the name of unregistered branch office, which has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order referred above, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant is a trader and exporter of Raw Indian Sugar having registered office at Mumbai and branch office at Gurgaon. It had exported sugar classified under Chapter 17 during the period April 2014 to July 2014 and claimed refund of ₹ 28,43,494/- against unutilised Cenvat Credit from the jurisdictional authority of the respondent department at Mumbai manually on 20-04-2015. It had received a deficiency memo dated 06-08-2015 and 09-09-2015 which were duly complied on 12-08-2015 and 17-09-2015. Vide order-in-original no. SKS/R-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng attention of this Bench to notification no. 41/2012 Service Tax dated 29-06-2012 and to the judgement of the Tribunal reported in 2016 (9) TMI 584 Cestat, Mumbai as well as 2019 (3) TMI 1530 Cestat, Mumbai he argued that inputs received by the appellant and utilisation was not disputed and the same is admissable even without registration of the unit under Finance Act 1994 for which rejection of invoices raised on another address which is not included in the registration certificate would not sustain. Further citing the judgement reported in 2017 (12) TMI 945 Cestat (Bangalore) and in 2019 Cestat, Mumbai Cited Supra, he pointed out that it was the duty of the original authority to send the refund claim to the concerned Commissionera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the one pronounced recently on 24-5-2010 in appeal ST/86329/14 in the case of Kinetic Advertisement (I) Pvt Ltd, such a claim for refund on invoices issued in the address of unregistered Branch office is admissible and the same also found approval by the respondent department itself that had issued notification no. 41/2012. Therefore, the legality of the order concerning non-maintainability of the refund claim at Mumbai and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable. 6. In the order-in-original, other grounds of rejection of refund were also dealt with out of which appellant had accepted the time barred claim of ₹ 43,399/- which has been abandoned by it as revealed from page no. 17(1) of its appeal memo. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
