TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SCN - Held that: - The show cause notice was issued to them on the grounds of time bar. However the refund was rejected on the ground that the exemption cannot be claimed retrospectively. The lower authorities could not have firstly decided the issue on grounds which was not canvassed in the show cause notice - impugned order traveled beyond SCN. Time limitation - Held that: - In the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t even though they were eligible for abatement of tax on 75% of the freight charges in terms of Notification No. 32/2004 ST dt. 01.03.2004. The Appellants also availed credit of said amount of tax paid in their cenvat credit account. During audit and on the insistence of the department they were made to reverse credit of ₹ 7,89,649/. The Appellant on 14.06.2007 filed refund claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant submit that the impugned order is illegal as it travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on ground that the claim is hit by limitation of time but the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the service tax was paid correctly hence Appellant cannot claim refund. He relies upon the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y after the insistence of the department on 07.12.2006 to reverse the credit availed by the Appellant. The show cause notice was issued to them on the grounds of time bar. However the refund was rejected on the ground that the exemption cannot be claimed retrospectively. We find that the lower authorities could not have firstly decided the issue on grounds which was not canvassed in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year of the letter dt. 07.12.2006. The Appellant s claim is thus cannot be held to be time bar. Our views are based upon Tribunal s order in case of Raj Petro supra. We thus hold that the Appellants are entitled for the refund of amounts claimed by them. We also hold that the Appellant are entitled for the credit of service tax so paid. Thus if they claim cenvat credit of same they shall not clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
