9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry and further held that the wordings of the notification make it very clear that the question of the service being rendered pre or post export has no significance. Swatch Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess - HELD THAT:- This issue stands settled by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of M/S. MMTC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST CX, BHUBANESWAR COMMISSIONERATE [ 2023 (10) TMI 815 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled for refund of Swatch Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess in terms of notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Refund paid on courier services - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed this very issue in the appellant s own case M/S. KANAM LATEX INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI [ 2024 (1) TMI 1055 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . The Department has accepted the said order-in-appeal and no further appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the grant of refund of service tax paid on courier services. It is submitted that the appropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,24,593/- is clearly without authority of law and therefore they are entitled to the refund of the said amount wrongl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authority held that the appellant is not eligible for refund/rebate of the amounts paid towards Gamma Sterilization Service and rejected the refund claims. The appellant preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the vide the impugned orders, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. Hence these appeals before this Tribunal. 4. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 4.1 The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that; (i) The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim in respect of gamma sterilization services used by the appellant for sterilizing the latex gloves prior to their export. The said activity of sterilization was carried out at the premises of the appellant s job worker. The refund claims were rejected on the common ground that the gamma sterilization service was undertaken much before the time of export and hence does not fall under the category of services that have been used beyond the place of removal for the export of the said goods mentioned under Explanation (A) (i) of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 19.09.2017 Gamma Sterilization Service 1,00,989/- 14. ST/40507/2019 10/2019 dated 31.01.2019 Gamma Sterilization Service, Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess 1,41,104/- 15. ST/40507/2019 11/2019 dated 31.01.2019 Gamma Sterilization Service, Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess 4,89,385 3.2 The Ld. AR has highlighted the legal issues as stated in the impugned orders and reiterated the same. 4. I have gone through the Memorandum of Appeal and have heard the rival parties. I find that the main ground for rejecting the refund claim in respect of the service tax paid on the gamma sterilization service is relating to the terms of Explanation (A)(i) of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012, whereby, specified services means in the case of excisable goods, taxable services that have been used beyond the place of removal, for the export of the said goods . It is the contention of the Department that gamma sterilization service was undertaken at the premises of the appellant s job worker and that the said service was undertaken much before the time of export and hence does not fall under the category of specified services . It was held that the activity of sterilization wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellant s own case vide order-in-appeal Nos. 299 300/2010 dated 23.07.2010 and order-in-appeal Nos. 79 80/2016 dated 17.06.2016. The Department has accepted the said order-in-appeal and no further appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the grant of refund of service tax paid on courier services. 7. With respect to the rejection of refund claim in respect of appeals No. ST/41544 41606/2016 on the ground that the same was filed in an improper format and that the application in the correct format was filed beyond the cutoff date, the appellant has submitted that it is now well settled that a refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that the same has been filed in a wrong format. They have placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Apar Industries (Polymer Division) Versus Union of India reported in 2016 (333) E.L.T. 246 (Guj.) ii. M/s. Amity Thermosets Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vapi reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 157 (Tri. - Ahmd.) iii. M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise reported in 2022 (10) TMI 516 - CESTAT CHENNA I find that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment Sardar Amarjit Singh Kal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
