Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (11) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vices provided by them do not fall under the category of Export of Service for the purpose of grant of the refund benefit. The original authority while adjudicating the show-cause notice dated 20.07.2015 had dropped the proposals made therein and had considered that the services provided by the appellant qualify as Export of Service for the purpose of grant of benefit of the refund provided under Rule 5 ibid read with Notification issued thereunder. However, on appeal filed against the said original order by the Revenue, the learned Pr. ADG has taken entirely a different view and accepted the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that the appellant should not be entitled for refund in terms of Rule 4 ibid. Hence, it is evident that the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the Respondent : Shri Piyush Bade, Authorized Representative PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in providing various taxable services defined under the Finance Act, 1994 and for that purpose they themselves have registered with the Service Tax Department. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed an application before the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities claiming refund of Service Tax of Rs. 10,58,10,484/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012. The refund application was disposed of by the Dy. Commissioner of Service Tax vide order dated 30.01.2017 in sanctioning the amount o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the said Rules. Thus, learned Advocate submitted that the learned Pr. ADG has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice inasmuch as the show-cause notice had only proposed for denial of the refund benefit as an intermediary, whereas the learned Pr. ADG has taken entirely different ground for allowing the appeal in favour of the Revenue. Further, learned Advocate has submitted that the issue arising out of the impugned order is no more res integra inasmuch as on identical facts Department s appeals rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) were accepted by the Department and no appeal has been preferred against such decisions. In this context, learned AR also fairly concedes that for different period from July, 2012 to June, 201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund in terms of Rule 4 ibid. Hence, it is evident that the learned Pr. ADG has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice. It is settled law that show-cause notice is the foundation on which the Department must build up its case and the Department cannot urge new grounds/points which were never raised in the show-cause notice. It is also settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Review proceedings cannot go beyond the grounds taken in the show-cause notice, as held in the cases of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC), Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Shital International 2010 (259) ELT 165 (SC) and CCE, Bhubaneswar-I Vs. Champdany Industries Ltd. 2009 (241) ELT 481 (SC) that the sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 27.06.2018 has been accepted by the Department, in our considered opinion, Department cannot agitate the same matter subsequently for a contrary decision. In this context, we find that the law is well settled as in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Vs. Surcoat Paints (P) Ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 4 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that once the Department accepts the benefits available to an assessee in any one case, then it cannot agitate the same issue for subsequent assessee(s). 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Pr. ADG in rejecting the refund benefit due to the appellant. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates