Parry Sugars Refinery India Pvt Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam – GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 479 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 17-12-2018
Appeal No. ST/30754/2018 – A/31605/2018
Service Tax
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. Subba Rao.
1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-002- APP-138-17-18 dated 28.02.2018.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein imports of raw sugar from Brazil and after reprocessing exports it to other countries. They operate as an SEZ unit in Kakinada. The appellant filed a refund claim in Notification No. 12/2013-ST before the Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kakinada for refund of the service tax paid on input services. A show cause notice was issued on 09.06.2016 calling upon them to explain as to why refund claim of Rs. 3,91,64
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fication 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 filing the refund claim with respect to these amounts were condonable by the Asst./Dy. Commissioner but the same has been unfairly rejected. She relies on the case law of HBL Power Systems Ltd [2018 (10) TMI 168 (CESTAT-HYD)] in which such delay was condoned. With respect to the rejection of Rs. 20,80,749/- on the ground that the services in question were not approved by the Development Commissioner, she submits that rejection of refund on this ground was beyond the scope of the show cause notice which was issued. The show cause notice nowhere sought to reject this amount and therefore such rejection nee
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
estion of rejection of refund of Rs. 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 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. In view of the above, I find 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 with respect to all the amounts of refund which he seeks to reject and after following due process of law and following principles of natural justice, issue a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =