COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX Vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Commissioner, Central Excise And Service Tax
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K.DAS,MEMBER (J) -
(1.)REVENUE filed these appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was modified insofar as the refund claim filed by the Respondent in respect of CENVAT Credit of input Service Tax on Courier service and CHA service under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was allowed and the refund claim which is not filed within 60 days from the end of relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported, was rejected.
(2.)The Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of PP Medicaments and also availing CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The Respondents filed one refund claim on 30.09.2009 for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 and another refund claim filed on 29.12.2009 for the period 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2009 in respect of Service Tax paid by them on several services received and utilized in export of the goods during the period from January 2009 to June 2009 under Notification No. 41/2007 -ST, Dt. 17.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 03/2008 -ST, Dt. 19.02.2008. The Respondents filed refund claims in respect of services used by them in export of goods viz. Customs House Agent (CHA) charges and Courier/Freight charges. Two show cause notices Dt. 10.12.2009 and 05.04.2009 were issued, proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground of non -fulfillment of conditions of the notification. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim for non -fulfillment of the provisions of Notification No. , Dt. 06.10.2007 as amended. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim on CHA services and Courier services on Service Tax paid by the Respondents.
(3.)THE learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the Respondents failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification as observed by the Adjudicating authority in the Adjudication order. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined this issue. He relied upon the following decision as under: -
i) King Metal Works v. CST Mumbai : 2015 (38) STR 973 (Tri -Mum)
It has been held that the refund claim was rightly rejected on the ground of non -fulfillment of condition regarding furnishing of contract and non -mentioning of amount paid to commission agent in the shipping bills.
ii) CCE v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. : 2015 (321) ELT 629 (All.)
It has been held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remission of duty, required to be followed for claiming remission.
iii) CCE New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. : 2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tri -LB)
It has been held that credit denied in cases, where the manufacturer did not even care to inform the Assistant Collector about loss of duplicate copy of invoice.
iv) CCE Ahmedabad v. Amee Castors & Derivatives Ltd. : 2013 (30) STR 467 (Tri -Ahmd)
It has been held that refund claim of fumigation charges not admissible in the absence of written agreement and in the absence of non -fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Notification No. .
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.