TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Harish, AR For the respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.6.2016 wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of handloom made-ups and designer textile fabrics. They had been availing the services from the agents from abroad for procuring export orders and for marketing their products abroad. Earlier the appellant was of the bona fide belief that since this service is provided from abroad and utilized for marketing the products abroad; there was no service tax liability on their part. Further, the Superintendent of Central Excise visited the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interest accrued on excess amount retained by the department, from its payments made by the appellant to the date of refund. This interest was arrived at by calculating at the rate of 6% per annum on the basis of certain case laws decided by the Tribunal viz., Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2007 (218) ELT 563; Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills vs. CCE: 2009 (243) ELT 560. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 31.12.2012 was issued proposing to reject the refund of interest paid voluntarily by the appellant during investigation. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 4.3.2013 rejected the claim for refund of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be paid to that applicant interest at such rate not below 5% and not exceeding 30% per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government by Notification in the official gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. Further, the learned commissioner (A) has observed that the appellant paid an amount of ₹ 37,37,123/- towards the service tax and says under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period from 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2007. As per the Order-in-Original dated 16.4.2012, it was held that assessee is liable for payment of service tax under the said category for the period from 18.4.2006 to 31.3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
