9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen only) said to be the service tax paid erroneously on commission received for Business Auxiliary services provided by them to their client in Tokyo, which amounted to exports, which were carried during the year 2007-08. [Actually appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,48,621/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty One only) but wrongly written in the impugned order as Rs. 91,218/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen only)]. Vide Order-in-Original No. 268/2008 dated 02.12.2008, the claim was rejected in toto on the grounds that the services are performed in India and hence the exemption under Export of Services Rules, 2005 is not applicable to them. Against this Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y). He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellants have provided export of services and is not liable to pay service tax on the export of services and further appellant has erroneously paid the service tax on the export of services on 04.03.2008 and thereafter filed the refund claim seeking the refund of erroneously paid service tax and the Order-in-Original No.268/2008 dated 02.12.2008 rejected the refund by holding that the appellant is liable to pay service tax. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 12.04.2010 held that the services rendered by the appellant amounts to export of services and therefore service tax not applicable. He further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the fact that there was no need of filing the refund application once again once the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 12.04.2010 has already allowed the refund of the appellant. The Department instead of asking the appellant to file fresh application seeing refund should have refunded the amount in view of the decision of the Commissioner. I am also of the opinion that the second application which was filed by the appellant was not required to be filed and therefore the question of time-bar does not arise in this case and therefore the impugned order dismissing the refund claim of the appellant on time-bar is not sustainable in law. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Siddhant Chemicals Vs. Union of India - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 44 wherein it has been held that interest has to be paid automatically under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act and the payment of interest is not dependent on claim by the party instead authority is statutorily obligated to pay the interest. Further the Department of Revenue in Revisionary Authority in reference to B.P.M. Industries Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 557 has held that interest payable from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such refund application till date of refund of such duty. In view of my discussion above and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. cited supra, I am of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
