M\/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 89 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 18-9-2018
Appeal Nos. ST\/30015 & 30016\/2018 – A\/31203-31204\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nShri Ch. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
\nShri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner & Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (ARs) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nThese two appeals are filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-117&118-17-18 dated 28.09.2017 passed by the First Appellate Authority setting aside two Orders-in-Original passed by the lower authority.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claims in terms of Notification No. 41\/2012 -ST dated 29.06.2012 seeking refund of service tax credit. The applications were ex<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Provided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has reason to believe that the claim, or the enclosed documents are not in order or that there is a reason to deny such rebate, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, take action, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules made there under; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n torily requires the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself before sanctioning the refund. The Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in satisfying himself as evident in the Orders-in-Original and hence the Orders-in- Original were correctly set aside by the First Appellate Authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GSTService Tax2018 (11) TMI 89 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 18-9-2018Appeal Nos. ST\/30015 & 30016\/2018 – A\/31203-31204\/2018Service TaxMr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Ch. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner & Shri Dass … Continue reading “M\/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt was the case of the Revenue before the First Appellant Authority that the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, must mandatorily satisfy himself as per the conditions of the notification. This condition was not fulfilled while sanctioning the refunds and hence there was a violation of Notification No. 41\/2012 and therefore the Orders-in-Original sanctioning refunds are liable to be set aside. The First Appellate Authority examined the Revenue's appeal and found that the Assistant Commissioner had, in fact, not discharged his duty in terms of para 3(k) of notif<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. I have considered the arguments on both sides. The only point of contention is that the Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in properly recording his satisfaction of fulfillment of conditions of the notification while sanctioning the refund. There is no allegation that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the notification. In view of this unusual factual matrix in which one of the conditions of the notification was not fulfilled by the Assistant Commissioner (and not by the assessee), I find, it is a fit case remanded back to the Original Authority to satisfy himself and record his satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n