Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Pune Iii vs M/S Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers on 26 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV APPEAL NO. ST/463/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/VM/66-67/2011 dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals) Pune.) For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== CCE, Pune III : Appellant Versus M/s Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers : Respondent Appearance Shri S.V. Nair, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) : For Appellant Ms. Sangeeta A Panhale, Partner : For Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing : 26.12.2014 Date of Decision: 26.12.2014 ORDER NO....................................................... Per: P.S. Pruthi:
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal under which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the sanction of refund of Rs. 73,791/- to the respondent under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The facts are that the respondent filed a refund claim for refund of Service Tax on 27.04.2009 with respect to Service Tax wrongly paid in July, 2008 for Auction Services provided to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Revenue is in appeal against sanction of refund.
3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
4. I find in this case the ground of appeal is only to the effect that the refund is barred by the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied to Service Tax law. However, from the facts it is clear that the refund claim was filed within time. Apparently the appeal has been filed with non application of mind.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) Sp 2