2019 (2) TMI 479 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – SEZ unit – Refund of service tax – N/N. 12/2013-ST – rejection on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the period of one year stipulated in the notification – Held that:- The bulk of the demand pertains to rejection of invoices meant for waste disposal services availed by the appellant on the ground that these were not approved by the Development Commissioner. No show cause notice was issued to the appellant on this ground. The show cause notice which was issued was only covering another part of the refund claim – the principles of natural justice have been violated and therefore the matter needs to be remitted to the original authority with direction to issue a show cause notice – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal No. ST/30754/2018 – A/31605/2018 – Dated:- 17-12-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Ms. Swetha, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ces were not approved by the Development commissioner. The services in question pertain to waste disposal carried out by their service provider M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was small delay in filing the refund claim with respect to the invoices amounting to ₹ 3,91,649/- as they had to obtain necessary certificates from the bankers. She draws the attention of the Bench to the Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 Para 3 (iii) (e) of which stipulates the claim for refund shall be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made or such extended period as the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall permit. It is her assertion that the small delay in fili
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
given to them. She relies on the cases of Toyo Engineering India Ltd [2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC)], Brindavan Beverages Pvt Ltd [2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC)] and Caprihans India Ltd [2015 (325) ELT 632 (SC)] and asserts that the impugned order as well as the order of the lower authority have clearly travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice which is not sustainable. 4. Learned departmental representative concedes that the show cause notice did not cover rejection of refund claim of ₹ 20,80,749/- on waste disposal services and to this extent travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. On the question of rejection of refund of ₹ 3,91,649/-, he draws the attention of the bench to the Order-in-Original in which the Asst. Commissioner had recorded that he had not found sufficient reason to not condone the delay. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The bulk of the demand pertains to rejection of invoices meant for waste disposal servi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =