9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 The Adjudicating Authority after scrutinizing the claim, vide Order-in-Original no. 78/2014 (Refund) dated 24.06.2014, however, sanctioned only a partial refund and rejected the balance amount which was paid under reverse charge mechanism by the appellant. Aggrieved by the above partial rejection, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 415/2015 (CXA-II) dated 21.12.2015 rejected the appellant's claim. Against the above Order-in-Appeal, the appellant filed appeal before this forum and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42402/2016 dated 07.12.2016 also rejected the appeal. 1.3 It is an admitted position that both the assessee as well as the Revenue accepted the above Final Order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 577 (Guj.); (iv) Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 21 (Guj.); (v) Parijat Construction Vs. C.C.E., Nashik - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.); (vi) Hindustan Cocoa Products Vs. Union of India - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 525 (Bom.); (vii) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. - Del.); (viii) C.C.E., Raipur Vs. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 161 (Tri. - Del.); (ix) C.C.E., Bangalore-III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar.); (x) Monnet International Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi - 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 380 (Tri. - Del.); (xi) Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Kochi - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 706 (Ker.); 3.3 He speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This is because, in my opinion, the refund accrued to the assessee-appellant by virtue of its export and not as a consequence of an order of the Tribunal. 6.2 The relevant facts in brief before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech (supra) are as under: "3. After making the payment, the appellant realised that under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, inserted w.e.f. 1-7-2012, the appellant did not have a liability to pay Service Tax. After realising this error, the appellant on 30-6-2016 made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax) Tirunelveli Division, for the refund of this tax paid by him, which was in excess of his liability. 4. While dealing with the representation of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax paid, it would not be proper, and against the tenets of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions :- (a) The Application under Section 11B cannot be rejected on the ground that is barred by limitation, provided for under Section. (b) The claim for return of money must be considered by the authorities." 7. The orders relied on by the Ld. AR though are equally effective, but in view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned order and the rejection cannot sustain. The authorities are therefore bound to consider the refund in the light of the directions of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
