M/s Bayer Crop Science Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow
Service Tax
2018 (1) TMI 1389 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 31-1-2018
APPEAL No. ST/70745/2017-ST[SM] – A/72277/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Tarun Chatterjee Consultant, for Appellant
Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Anil Choudhary
The issue in this appeal is, whether the refund claim of the appellant has rightly been rejected by the court below.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a producer of hybrid seeds of Paddy, Cotton, Mustered, Millett, etc. which are, thereafter, sold to various agencies, including Government Agencies for Agricultural Purposes. The appellant engaged one sales agent namely M/s R. K. Agencies located at Lucknow. By taking the service of the said M/s R. K. Agencies, they sold hybrid seeds to Government of U. P. – Agricultu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on 66D specifically excludes services by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce. Accordingly, the appellant applied for refund of the Service Tax wrongly paid, on 12th March, 2014. The said refund application was returned by the Department on 31st March, 2014 stating that the appellant was not registered with the Service Tax Department.
3. Thereafter the appellant again filed and submitted the refund claim on the 21st April, 2014, pursuant to which Show Cause Notice dated 17th July, 2014 was issued. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the refund claim was rejected on the grounds:-
claim is barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as it is filed on 21st April, 2014 and clause (a-e) of explanation B of Section 11B provides that the relevant date to compute the time-limit of one year in the case of goods which are exempted from payment of duty, by a special order, the date of such order. As the appellant had deposited Rs. 81,807/- on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed to observe that the ratio of the judgment of the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable and, accordingly, was pleased to reject the refund claim.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant states that reliance has been placed by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ruling in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is misplaced. He points out from the finding of the Apex Court when it is observed that – the question that is raised is – there is little scope for doubt that in case where an adjudicating authority has passed an order which is appealable under the statute, and the party aggrieved did not chose to exercise the statutory right of filing appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the authority subsequently, by filing a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order.
7. The learned counsel s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =