9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rahul Tangri, Deepro Sen & Shovit Betal, all Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) holding that the refund claim is barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the activit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the impression that for the service of coal washing, both cash and kind component has to be taken into account to determine the value and accordingly, service tax needs to be discharged on it. Accordingly, the appellant added the actual sale value of coal rejects over and above the beneficiation charges and paid service tax on it by classifying the service as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id order, the appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Earth Minerals Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II vide Final Order No.76351/2024 dated 09.05.2024, wherein it has been held that on the sale of coal rejects the appellant is not liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y this Tribunal in the case of Earth Minerals Company Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "10.2 As per clause 8 of the agreement between the appellant and service recipient, the coal rejects shall be the property of the appellant and he is entitled to dispose of the said coal rejects and the value of the said coal rejects has been added in the taxable charges for the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, we hold that the appellant is not entitled for refund for the period April, 2012. Therefore, for the period May 2012 to June 2012 the refund claim was required to be entertained by both the authorities and cannot be rejected as barred by limitation. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) to deal with the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
