9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appeal No.40508/2019 Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The issue in all these appeals relate to refund of rebate and hence they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. The amount involved in each appeals are as under:- S. No. Appeal No. Amount Involved (Rs.) 1. E/42824/2014 1,37,870/- 2. ST/40846/2016 1,10,952/- 3. ST/40847/2016 42,332/- 4. ST/41542/2016 81,717/- 5. ST/41543/2016 2,44,789/- 6. ST/41544/2016 2,44,789/- 7. ST/41606/2016 1,21,350/- 8. ST/40552/2017 1,23,798/- 9. ST/40553/2017 1,89,289/- 10. ST/40554/2017 74,181/- 11. ST/42468/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmi Ganeshram, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 4.1 The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that; (i) The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim in respect of gamma sterilization services used by the appellant for sterilizing the latex gloves prior to their export. The said activity of sterilization was carried out at the premises of the appellant's job worker. The refund claims were rejected on the common ground that the gamma sterilization service was undertaken much before the time of export and hence does not fall under the category of 'services that have been used beyond the place of removal for the export of the said goods' mentioned under Explanation (A) (i) of Notification No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/40847/2016 04/2016 Dated 25.01.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service 16,331/- Courier Service 23,764/- 4. ST/41542/2016 54/2016 dated 27.05.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service 81,717/- 5. ST/41543/2016 48 & 49/2016 dated 26.05.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service 2,31,274/- 6. ST/41544/2016 79 & 80/2016 Dated 17.06.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service and filing of refund claim in improper format 99,605/- 7. ST/41606/2016 79 & 80/2016 dated 17.06.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service and filing of refund claim in improper format 99,605/- 8. ST/40552/2017 153/2016 dated 14.12.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service 1,23,798/- 9. ST/40553/2017 154/2016 dated 14.12.2016 Gamma Sterilization Service 1,89,289/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization was carried out in the place of the appellant's job worker which is beyond the place of removal of latex gloves. 4.1 Per contra the appellant has stated that notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 was retrospectively amended vide notification No.1/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016 read with Section 160 of the Finance Act, 2016. As per the said amendment, 'specified services' has been substituted to mean: "(i) in the case of excisable goods, taxable services that have been used beyond factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the said goods, for their export;' I find that, the amendment has widened the ambit of the term 'specified service'. The appellant has drawn attention to the Tribunal judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Cess in terms of notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. 6. With regard to the refund paid on courier services, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed this very issue in the appellant's own case vide order-in-appeal Nos. 299 & 300/2010 dated 23.07.2010 and order-in-appeal Nos. 79 & 80/2016 dated 17.06.2016. The Department has accepted the said order-in-appeal and no further appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the grant of refund of service tax paid on courier services. 7. With respect to the rejection of refund claim in respect of appeals No. ST/41544 & 41606/2016 on the ground that the same was filed in an improper format and that the application in the correct format was filed beyond the cutoff date, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal Nos. ST/40846 & 40847/2016 respectively is illegal since it was made despite the fact that they had informed about filing of an appeal against order-in-appeal No.157/2014 dated 15.09.2014 before this Hon'ble Tribunal involving the said demand. It is submitted that subsequently, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No.40088/2024 dated 25.01.2024 had allowed their appeal. Therefore, it is submitted that the appropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,24,593/- is clearly without authority of law and therefore they are entitled to the refund of the said amount wrongly appropriated. In the facts and circumstances stated, the appropriation of amounts made and covered by the above-mentioned appeals, are set aside. 9. Having examined the issues an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
