9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax Rs. 11,31,601/- + Interest Rs. 2,91,590/- + Penalty Rs. 1,69,740/-, totalling Rs. 15,92,931/-. This amount should be refunded to the appellant within a period of 45 days alongwith interest as per the provisions Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50808 of 2021 (SB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50487/2022 - Dated:- 27-5-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellant-asseesse have been rejected which was collected on ocean freight. 3. The bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for refund of the amount of tax with interest and penalty. 5. Show cause notice dated 11.06.2018 was issued mentioning as the appellant deposited the tax with interest towards settlement of audit para and further the appellant has not claimed that they were not liable to pay service tax, as pointed by the Excise Audit team, nor they have claimed that the tax was paid erroneously. Further, the appellant have simply filed the refund claim as per provisions under Section 142(8) of CGST Act, 2017. It was further alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant have not produced any document evidencing that they have not taken credit of the said amount, therefore the refund claim appears to be bad. Accordingly, the appellant was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax, have preferred the refund claim, only on the ground that cenvat credit is not available to them, in view of the provisions of Section 142(8) of CGST Act, 2017. It is further observed that the appellant have not submitted supporting documents to substantiate their claim. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2019, rejected the appeal. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. Thus reiterate the grounds of Appeal. 9. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the transaction value for Custom duty and Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
