9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the duty was correctly paid and therefore, the claim for refund was not sustainable and accordingly, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.08.2017 proposing to reject the refund claim citing Notification No. 45/2001-C.E.(N.T.) dated 26.06.2001. 1.2 After due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 27.06.2018 rejected the refund claim inter alia on the ground that exports to Bhutan are specifically governed by Notification No. 45/2001 (supra) which required exports to be made only on payment of appropriate Excise Duty; that in terms of Article VIII of the Agreement on Trade, Commerce and Transit (hereinafter referred to as the 'agreement') between the Government of India and the Government of Bhutan, it is the Min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-Original as well as the impugned Order-in-Appeal that the Revenue has nowhere disputed this aspect, i.e., the appellant did make the export after paying the appropriate Excise Duty and it was this duty which was claimed as refund under Rule 18 ibid. Although Rule 18 refers to the rebate of duty, this would not make any difference because of the interpretation drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Uttam Steel Ltd. reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.) and the relevant paragraph reads as under: "13. ...... It is clear from Section 11B(2) proviso (a) that a rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India would be covered by the said provision. A reading of Mafatlal Industries (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Judicature in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 410 (Mad.) apt. Following are the relevant paragraphs : "12. Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 13. On an analysis of the precedents cited above, we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
