TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for refund of service tax. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 21074 of 2019 - Final Order No. 20065/2020 - Dated:- 27-1-2020 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. P. Harikumar, Managing Director of the Company For the Appellant Mr. S. Devarajan, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2019 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are service provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and the Commissioner (A) after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned authorized representative, Mr. P. Harikumar, Managing Director of appellant-company, appeared and submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly relying upon the decision in the case of M/s. Andrew Telecom (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Goa reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 562 (Bom.). He further submitted that the said decision of the Bombay High Court is not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that the issue of refund in the context of Board Circular No.108/2/2009 dated 29.1.2009 had not been discussed but the Hon ble High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in the case of M /s. Veer Overseas Ltd. vs. CCE, Panchkula cited supra and after examining the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India: 1996 (12) TMI 50-SC, the Larger Bench in paragraph 9 and 10 has held as under: 9. The apex court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) observed that the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder including Section 11B too constitute law‟ within the meaning of Article 265 and that in the face fo the said provisions which are exclusive in their nature, no claim for refund is maintainable except and in accordance therewith. The apex court emphasized that the provisions of the Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
