9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate issued by the Chartered Accountant wherein he has clearly stated that (i) Cenvat Credit has not been taken by the Appellant (ii) The amount of refund claim filed, has been shown as amount receivable/dues from the Service Tax Department. When such an important document has been filed, the officials are required to give proper consideration for the same and give a clear finding as to why the same was not considered as proper evidence towards unjust enrichment clause . They have failed to do so. Coming to the argument of the Learned AR that the initial assessment was not disputed and the Appellant has not gone for re- assessment, in this case, this point will not arise. Here the Appellant is not service provider who has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012-ST dated 20/06/2012 as amended by Notification No. 3/2013- ST dated 1/03/2013, exemption was granted for payment of Service Tax on GTA services if the same were used for transportation of food stuff including tea, coffee, etc. The Appellant being manufacture of biscuits was eligible for concession granted under Notification No. 3/2013-ST dated 1/03/2013. However, without noticing this beneficial Notification they continued to pay the Service Tax on GTA services during the period May 2013 to October 2013. After realizing that they are not required to pay Service Tax on such activity, they stopped further payment of Service Tax and filed refund claim for Rs. 43,76,494/-. The Department issued Show Cause Notice seeking to know as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have given any speaking order nor referred the same in their Orders. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal may be allowed. 3. The Learned AR submits that the Appellant has failed to prove that their claim is not hit by unjust enrichment clause. He also relies on the case law of Shree Balaji Warehouse, M/s. Satya Warehouse and M/s. Im Shree Sai Ram Vs. Commr. of Central excise Service Tax, Panchkula- 2022 (2) TMI 900-CESTAT Chandigarh, Wherein the issue is as to whether the refund claims filed by the assessee has to first complete the process of re-assessment of the Returns filed as held in the case of ITC. Accordingly, he submits that the Appellant has not carried out the exercise of re-assessment if they were not satisfied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
