TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 24-12-2010 - Mr.P.G. Chacko, For Applicant (Represented by: Mr. Mayur Shroff, Advocate) For Respondent (Represented by: Mr. S.S. Katiyar, SDR) Per: P.G. Chacko 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question to be examined is whether the appellant is entitled to claim refund of an amount of interest paid on an amount of service tax. The appellant had received business auxiliary services from foreign commission agents during the period from 10.9.2004 to November 2006. In terms of Rule 2 (i) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, they also paid the service tax on the commission paid to the foreign commission agent amounting to Rs 24,28,022/-. Interest amounting to Rs 2,30,018/- on this amount of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian National Shipowners Association vs Union of India 2009 (13) STR 235 (BOM). The learned counsel further relies on the decisions in CM Envirosystem Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner 2009 (238) ELT 693 (Tri-Bang), Commissioner vs Northern Minerals Ltd 2007 (216) ELT 198 (P H) and Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd vs Commissioner 2007 (208) ELT 209 (Tri-Del). In all the three cases, claims for refund of interest on duty were allowed in various factual situations. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the refund claim. 3. The learned SDR reiterates the findings recorded by the original authority and the first appellate authority. He submits that, prior to 12.5.2008, Section 11B of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x, there was liability to pay interest also, which was inextricable from the delayed payment of tax, as held by the Honrable High Court. In this scenario, the appellant cannot be allowed to extricate or delink interest liability from the delayed payment of service tax already utilized as CENVAT credit for payment of duty on excisable goods. In other words, the claim of the appellant for refund of interest cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In the case of Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd (supra), the appellant had filed claim for refund of a certain amount of duty and also for refund of the interest paid thereon. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
