9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... query memo on 17-07-2015. It replied to the query memo under its letter dated 19-07-2015. Further, the appellant again received a query memo on 03-11-2015. The said memo was also replied under letter dated 07-12-2015. The refund was allowed under Order-In- Original No. STC/ Ref/123/HCV/Syx/Div-III/15-16 dated 29-01-2016. The said Order-In-Original was reviewed under section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 by a review order dated 08-04-2016. The appellant filed Its objection to the said review under letter dated 04-07-2016. But it still received demand show cause notice dated 11- 01-2017. Before the Appellate Commissioner, the appellant specifically referred to the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Tavant Technologies India Pvt Ltd 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Notification and the parent Act or Rules. The Act or Rule does not make any condition of the registration for grant of refund. Such condition being absent in the parent Act and also in the Notification, the appellant fails to see how such condition can be read in the Notification. While applying the legal principle, if it is true, in a particular case, it was that the requirement of registration must be shown in the Act or Rules. In the facts of present case, mere discussion in the law is made without any reference to the actual facts, obviously, it is not correct. The issue in the present case is whether for the period prior to the registration, the refund can be granted under Notification No. 27/2012. The copy of the Notification is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st October and fourth quarter from 1st January of every year. (c) the value of goods cleared for export during the quarter shall be the sum total of all the goods cleared by the exporter for exports during the quarter as per the monthly or quarterly return filed by the claimant. (d) the total value of goods cleared during the quarter shall be the sum total of value of all goods cleared by the claimant during the quarter as per the monthly or quarterly return filed by the claimant. (e) in respect of the services, for the purpose of computation of total turnover, the value of export services shall be determined in accordance with clause (D) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the said rules. (f) for the value of all services other than e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 (1 of 1944). (c) The application for the refund should be signed by- (i) the individual or the proprietor in the case of proprietary firm or karta in case of Hindu Undivided Family as the case may be; (ii) any partner in case of a partnership firm; (iii) a person authorized by the Board of Directors in case of a limited company; (iv) in other cases, a person authorized to sign the refund application by the entity. (d) The applicant shall file the refund claim along with the copies of bank realization certificate in respect of the services exported. (e) The refund claim shall be accompanied by a certificate in Annexure A-I, duly signed by the auditor (statutory or any other) certifying the correctness of refund clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption notification should also, by implication, empower the department to Impose penalty. Obviously, this would be an absurd proposition. 2.2 Further, the question of applying the Act and Rules may arise in a given case where is a conflict between the condition of Notification and the provisions of the Act. In the present case, apparently, there is no conflict between the notification and the Act. The conditions of the notification are entirely fulfilled. No new condition can be read into the notification by implication or otherwise. Clearly, therefore, the logic or reasoning of the Appellate Commissioner is incorrect and erroneous. 2.3 Further more, the appellant had specifically referred to the decisions of Karnataka High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. The same was also in context of exemption notification. As against this in the present case the decision of a KAPU GEMS Vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-SURAT-I as reported in 2024 (1) TMI 1118-CESTAT AHMEDABAD is directly on the point and holds that refund claim on goods exported cannot be denied on account of registration not being there. Following paras in the decisions are relevant :- "In view of the above Judgments given by this Tribunal as well as various High Courts, It is settled legal position that even though manufactured goods/ output services is exempted, refund of Service Tax against export of the same cannot be denied. Therefore, in the present case denial of refund claim on the ground that the goods exported is exempted is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
