TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Farmer Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd., vs. CCE, Meerut-II - [2013 (12) TMI 626 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. If the appellant which is a recipient of a service which is admittedly not taxable files a claim for refund within the prescribed period of limitation, it is axiomatic that it is entitled to do so before the Commissionerate under whose jurisdiction it pursues its taxable activities, business or is a registrant; or before the Commissionerate having authority over the provider of the service. That would be a matter of a legitimate choice for a claimant of refund. In this case, the appellant had initially filed a claim before the Delhi Commissionerate which rejected the same on the ground that it had no jurisdiction since the appellant was pursuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finition of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service excludes construction of a bridge, filed the refund claim on 21.03.2012 before the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division-II, Delhi claiming a refund of ₹ 4,26,305/-, constituting the service tax remitted by the appellant towards the non-taxable service of construction of a bridge, provided by M/s Gannon Dunkerly Co. Limited. On 20.04.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi returned the refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not within his jurisdiction and therefore he had no power to grant refund. The assessee/appellant again represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi for granting refund which was again rejected on 09.08.2012 and for the same reason. 4. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice is also entitled to file a claim for refund is no longer res-integra. The issue stand concluded by the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). This decision was followed in Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd., vs. CCE, Meerut-II - 2014 (35) STR 422 (Tri. Del.). If the appellant which is a recipient of a service which is admittedly not taxable files a claim for refund within the prescribed period of limitation, it is axiomatic that it is entitled to do so before the Commissionerate under whose jurisdiction it pursues its taxable activities, business or is a registrant; or before the Commissionerate having authority over the provider of the service. That would be a matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
