TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the show-cause notice but, the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the show-cause notice and has rejected the refund claim on the ground of time bar and also invoking the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4A. Held that: the issue needs to be considered by appreciating factual matrix and the retrospective amendment carried out to Notification 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh after following the Principles of Natural Justice. - ST/223/2009 - 1295/2010 - Dated:- 20-10-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.S. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim should not be rejected. It is his submission that the appellant had filed all the required documents as directed in the show-cause notice but, the adjudicating authority has gone beyond the show-cause notice and has rejected the refund claim on the ground of time bar and also invoking the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is his submission that they had taken this specific plea before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and he has also not addressed the said plea. It is his further submission that even the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the allegations made in the show-cause notice and hence the order needs to be set aside. It is also his submission that the retrospective amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vikram Ispat v. CCE, Aurangabad - 2009-TIOL-997-CESTAT-MUM = 2009 (16) S.T.R. 195 (T). (ii) Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641(S.C.) (iii) Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.v. CCE, Salem - 2010-TIOL-180-CESTAT-MAD = 2010 (17) S.T.R. 253 (T) = 2010 (250) E.L.T. 46 (T). (iv) CCE, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement Works - 2009-TIOL-2059-CESTAT-MUM = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 275 (T). (v) Madras Cements Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) He would also submit that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KBACE Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE ST, Bangalore - 2010 (18) S.T.R. 281 (Tri.-Bang.) will also apply in this case. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, which was not an allegation in the show-cause notice. Be that as it may, suffice to say it is a settled law that quasi-judicial authorities should confine their findings and conclusions to the allegations made in the show-cause notice after considering the defence put up by the assessee on such allegations. 8. It is also seen from the impugned order that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the appellant has not produced any evidence regarding the claim of the refund. We find from the records that the appellant has produced enormous evidences regarding the services received by him and on which Service Tax has been paid and the credit has been availed. It is not for the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
