Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Principal Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi-I Versus T.T. Limited

2016 (9) TMI 492 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Correctness of Tribunal's order - Refund claim - eligibility - Notification No.41 of 2007, as amended by later Notifications Nos.17/2008, 3/2008 and 33/2008 - export of manufactured cotton yarn - Held that:- the assessee’s contention that the subsequent notifications were merely clarificatory and must be held to relate back or apply from the date the base notification came into force, cannot be accepted. The CESTAT reasoning is therefore incorrect. As far as the assessee’s submission that the ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

OF INDIA], it cannot be said that the adjudicating authority lacked primary jurisdiction merely because of a circumscribed demand as being contended by the assessee. This contention too therefore fails. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. - Decided in favour of Revenue - SERTA 6/2015 & C.M.No. 28127/2015 - Dated:- 30-8-2016 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MS. DEEPA SHARMA JJ. Appellant Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel Respondent Through: Mr.Bimal Jain and Ms.Shilpi Jain Sha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 and 33/2008. The adjudicating authority in the first instance rejected the claims; the matter was remitted by the appellate commissioner upon which the refund was partly granted to the tune of 8.48 lakhs. The assessee once again appealed. In the course of the appeal, the commissioner - in the order-in-appeal dated 02.09.2011, held that substantial exports of the assessee were eligible for service tax refund - approximating 43.44 lakhs. The commissioner, however, remitted the matter for working .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07 (when the base notification i.e. 41/2007 was issued) but from later dates - substantial amounts claimed were related to Notification No.33/2008 dated 07.12.2008. The assessee s appeal was rejected by the commissioner. In the circumstances, it approached the tribunal which by the impugned order was of the opinion that the adjudicating authority could not adjudicate upon the refund claim afresh. The CESTAT also examined the correctness of the reasoning by the adjudicating authority and held tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not permissible in law. As the show cause notice was issued to the appellant in the matter has already attained finality by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 02.09.2011. If at all, the adjudicating authority wanted to re-examine all the refund claims, the adjudicating authority is required to be issue fresh show cause notice which the adjudicating authority has failed to do so. In the circumstances, the order dated 02. 09.2011 has attained finality as held by the Apex Court in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of WNS Global Service Pvt.Ltd. (supra). Relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Addi Industries Ltd., the contention of the ld.AR that the conditions of the notification are required to be fulfilled by the appellant, I find that in the case of Addi Industries Ltd.(supra), the condition of the notification was that refund claim is to be filed within the prescribed time but there is no condition in the notification that if the services availed prior to inserti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pt of this order. 3. The revenue which is in appeal contends that the CESTAT s reasoning is untenable. It relies upon the text of the amending notifications, particularly the terms of Notification No.17/2008 and Notification No.33/2008 both of which clearly state that the amendment would come into force upon the date of publication in the Official Gazette. It is also contended that the base notification (No.41/2007) itself superseded the earlier notification (i.e. No.40/2007 dated 17.09.2007. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Spice Telecom 2006 (203) ELT 538 (S.C.) and Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills vs. Union of India 2007 (215) ELT 11 (S.C.). It is pointed out that these two judgments enunciatively ruled that unless subsequent notification which amends an earlier exemption or inclusion contains a clear phrase pointing to the notification Relating back, the courts would give effect to it only from the date of their publication or issuance. It was submitted that Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills case (supra) rejected the argumen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l fact situation, the refund claim which was made in respect of services that were subsequently included, was upheld. Reliance was placed upon the view of the CESTAT which was confirmed by the High Court. The CESTAT had stated that unless there is an express stipulation in the amendment of a legal notification that it would apply for exports prospectively, it is deemed to apply for exports effected in the past as well so long as they are after the base notification. Learned counsel highlights th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w. Counsel contended that neither in the original proceeding nor even on the first remand was the issue of entitlement or eligibility of the assessee to claim the refund ever put to it. In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority could not have in the pretext of working out the remand by the commissioner, who had all but allowed the refund claims, revisit the eligibility. In short, learned counsel emphasised the principle of finality to say that the adjudicating authority was precluded from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07 was issued on 17.09.2007. That notification spelt out four services. It was superseded by Notification No.41/2007 on 06.10.2007. Thus the base notification for the first time included 12 services. Subsequent notifications kept adding to the list - these included Notification No.3/2008 (19.02.2008), 17/2008 (01.04.2008) and 33/2008 (07.12.2008). Significantly, both the base notifications superseded the earlier notification and saved only what was done or omitted to be done before the supersess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bject to the conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Schedule." It is quite apparent that the intent of the notification was only to save firstly what had been done or omitted to be done - in respect of the services that were included and secondly also to grant the benefit of the notifications of included services thereafter as is apparent from the use of the word hereby . This view gets support from the subsequent notifications - 17/2008 and 33/2008 both of whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cations - which amended the base notifications, were merely clarificatory. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) is an authority for the proposition that a clarificatory notification can be said to relate back to a point of time having regard to its terms. That seems to be the premise of CESTAT s decision in Sesa Goa Ltd. s case (supra) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 7. In this case, however, the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version