9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] . In this view of the fact, the revenue authorities were of the view that the refund claim filed by the Appellant is time barred as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Finance Act, 1994 vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the revenue department on 01.09.2023 in case of M/s. Kiri Dyes Chemicals Ltd. [ 2023 (9) TMI 305 - SC ORDER] holding that levy of service tax is not maintainable. Therefore, it was possible for the Appellant to file the refund claim within one year from 01.09.2023 i.e. up to 31.08.2024. Admittedly in the facts of the present case the Appellant have filed the refund claim on 23.11.2020 i.e. much befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012) withdrew the exemption from payment service tax on ocean freight. The said exemption was withdrawn with effect from 22.01.2017. Simultaneously, Service Tax Rules, 1994 were also amended to give effect that so far as import of services in the nature of ocean freight is concerned the person liable to pay service tax would be steamer agent under reverse charge mechanism. Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 would read as under: (EEC) in relation to services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.12.2020 proposing to reject the refund claim filed by the Appellant on the ground that the refund application has been filed by the Appellant on 23.11.2020 in pursuance of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of M/s. SAL Steel Ltd. dated 06.09.2019referred to supra. Therefore, it was alleged that the refund claim filed by the Appellant is time barred in terms of Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to Finance Act, 1994 vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice dated 28.12.2020 also noted that the revenue authorities have not accepted the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of M/s. SAL Steel Ltd. referred to supra and they have further filed SLP before H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2023 (9) TMI 305 SC on 01.09.2023. On this basis Ld. Counsel have submitted that the time limit of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be considered from 01.09.2023 and the Appellant has filed refund claim even before that. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 to buttress their arguments that in view of the specific provisions to grant refund of the earlier taxes they are entitled for the refund as claimed by them. Ld. Counsel has submitted the compilation of case laws and statutory provisions in this regard. 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR), appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order and also submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication filed by the Appellant on this count is not sustainable. 4.3 We further find force in the arguments of the Appellant that the refund claim is now squarely covered within the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 which reads as under: (3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit in the account of petitioner. In the alternative, it would certainly come under the category or any other amount paid . Therefore, either way the amount paid by petitioner, admittedly, has to be refunded. In fact, it is also admitted that an amount of Rs.10,48,11,737/- is refundable to petitioner. The credit of refund is the only issue because Mr.Adik, as an officer of this court and in fairness, agreed that Government cannot retain any amount without any authority of law. 12. Sub-Section (3) of Section 142 of the Act very clearly says any amount eventually accruing shall be paid in cash . In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that respondents ought to have directed the sanctioning authority to refund the amount of duty refundab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
