Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Essel Mining & Industries Ltd vs Bbsr Commissionerate on 20 February, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 78352 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 121/ST/RKL-GST/2018 dated 29.06.2018 passed
by the Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue
Building, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar-7 Odisha)
M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. : Appellant
P.O.- Barbil, District-Keonjhar, Odisha-758035
VERSUS
Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Customs, : Respondent
Bhubaneshwar
Central Revenue Building, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar-7 Odisha
APPEARANCE:
Shri Rahul Tangri, Advocate
MS. Taniya Roy, Advocate
For the Appellant
Shri S. K. Jha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO.75275/2026
DATE OF HEARING: 18.02.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.02.2026
ORDER:[PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN] M/s. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd, P.O.- Barbil, District-Keonjhar, Odisha-758035 ( herein after referred as the Appellant) are engaged in the activity of iron ore mining. The Appellant also exports different grades of iron ore falling under CTH 2601 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the period January 2008 to March 2008, the Appellant Page 2 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB entered into agreements with various Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for the transportation of the iron ores from the mines area to the port area. The GTA raised invoices on the Appellant for the provision of GTA services. Thus, during the course of export, the Appellant had paid service tax on GTA services received from service providers, in relation to export of cargo. The iron ore fines, being a commodity which is exported in bulk cargo, the same is required to be taken to the port in separate trucks and thereafter aggregated at port [viz. Paradeep, Haldia] before the export invoice is generated. The iron ore fines are produced in bulk and continuously transported to the port/railway siding. Once there is sufficient stock in the port plot, global tenders are invited from foreign customers and all the iron ore fines transported to the plot are exported to the foreign customers as per purchase orders.
1.1. On 30.05.2008, The Appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- in terms of Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 for the tax paid on GTA services used for export of iron ore fines during the relevant period. The refund application was accompanied with relevant invoices, challan evidencing payment of service tax, proof of exports etc. 1.2. A Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2008 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Rourkela-II Division proposing to reject the refund claim for non-compliance of conditions envisaged in Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, as amended. In the Notice, it was also alleged that iron Page 3 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB ore fines due for export had not been transported from the place of removal to the port of export, since mines are not place of removal. Further, it was alleged that the Appellant had failed to show that service tax had been paid on GTA services which were used in relation to export of the goods.
1.3. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide an order- in-original dated 23.09.2009 rejected the refund claim of the Appellant on the following grounds- a. Sl. No. 11 of the said Notification requires that goods must be transported from the place of removal to the port of export, Mines do not qualify as 'place of removal' in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1994, therefore, the Appellant had not fulfilled the condition that the transportation of goods was to be made from the place of removal.
b. Documents such as Shipping bills, bill of lading, bank realization certificate, export invoice etc. were not submitted by the Appellant, therefore, it could not be established that the materials in question had actually been exported. c. lorry receipts as well as shipping bills did not reflect the details of export invoices as required under the said Notification 1.4. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO dated 23.09.2009 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority vide OIA dated 02.03.2010, with the following observations:
a. There appears to be no dispute of timely submission of refund claim or actual export of goods, as evidenced by huge documentary evidences submitted by the Appellant along with Page 4 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB and after filing the refund claim. Thus, minor technical discrepancies found on verification cannot be grounds for rejecting refund claim. b. the OIO has not discussed the facts of the case and analyzed the relevant documents submitted by the Appellant, in detail, before rejecting the claim.
1.5. The Appellant by way of a letter dated 24.08.2016, intimated the department that there had been a clerical error while filing the refund claim and accordingly sought to revise the refund amount from Rs. 1,12,49,745/- to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. The said letter was also accompanied by a detailed calculation sheet of GTA invoices, which evidenced the amount of service tax paid during the relevant period.
1.6. In accordance with the remand direction passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Ld. Assistant Commissioner passed an order-in-original dated 30.03.2017, rejecting the refund claim on the following grounds.
a. Mines do not qualify as 'place of removal' in terms of the said Notification, therefore, the iron ore fines were not exported from the place of removal to the port of export as required under Sl. No. 11 of the said Notification.
b. the Appellant failed to show that service tax had been paid on the GTA services which were used in relation for export of goods.
c. the Appellant failed to provide any document proving that it had not claimed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid against GTA service.
Page 5 of 21Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB d. lorry receipts as well as shipping bills did not reflect the details of invoices/bills, therefore, correlation between these documents are not possible e. since the Appellant sought to claim extra refund by way of a letter instead of a fresh application, the enhancement of claim of refund cannot be possible.
1.7. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2018, upholding the rejection of refund claim of the Appellant, on the ground that the said refund claim was not in conformity with Notification No. 41/2007- ST as amended by Notification 3/2008-ST, on account of the following reasons:
a. Mines do not qualify as a place of removal as defined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Since the removal of iron ores from mines cannot be equated with removal of goods from factory, the condition (iii) stipulated under Notification No. 3/2008-ST is not fulfilled, and hence, the claim of the Appellant was denied.
b. There was nothing on record to show that the Appellant have not availed Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on receipt of GTA services. c. Appellant was unable to establish conclusively that they have duly paid service tax to the government against the GTA services. d. Further, the claim for enhancement of refund was also not allowed.
1.8. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal.Page 6 of 21
Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB
2. The submissions made by the appellant are as under.
2.1. Regarding the ground raised in the impugned order that mines do not qualify as "place of removal"
as per Section 4 of the CE Act, the Appellant submits that the Notification No. 41 /2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended permits an exporter to avail refund of service tax paid on specified services and used by the exporter for the export of goods. As per the conditions prescribed under Sl. No. 11 to the aforesaid Notification, the goods are required to be transported from the place of removal to the port area for the purpose of export. It is submitted that neither the said Notification nor the Finance Act, 1994 has defined the term 'place of removal', thus, the meaning of the said phrase ought to be borrowed from the CE Act wherein sub-clause (c) of Explanation VI of Section 4 defines the term 'place of removal' as under-
"(c) "place of removal" means-
(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods;
(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty]
(iii)[(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be Page 7 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB sold after their clearance from the factory;] from where such goods are removed;"
2.2. As per the aforesaid definition, 'place of removal' includes factory, or any other place or premise wherein the excisable goods are manufactured or produced. Hence, it is submitted that the phrase 'place of removal' is not strictly restricted to the factory premise but also includes any other place or premise of production of excisable goods. The Appellant cited the decision of CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 2009 (15) STR 540 (Tri.-Kol), wherein it has been held that the activity of mining amounts to production/manufacture of goods. Thus, in the instant case the activity of mining would qualify as production of excisable goods viz. iron ore. These excisable goods are further removed from their place of production viz. mine areas to the port for the purpose of exportation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conditions prescribed for determining 'place of removal' as per Section 4 of CE Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the present case.
2.3. The Appellant also submitted that the same issue has already been decided in favour of the Appellant by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneshwar vide Order-in-Appeal 25- 32/ST/BBSR-II/2011 dated 28.02.2011 in relation to the subsequent periods.
Page 8 of 21Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB 2.4. Similar proposition was upheld by various other forums in the following cases:
Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore, 2001 (129) ELT 734 (Tri.-Del) maintained in 2007 (216) E.L.T. A133 (SC) Raman Boards v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon, 2019 (365) E.L.T. 605 (Tri.-Chan.) J P Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MP, 2008 (8) TMI 29 (SC) 2.5. Thus, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for non-fulfilment of the aforesaid condition is liable to be set aside.
3. Regarding, non submission of the documents, the Appellant submits that vide their refund claim dated 30.05.2008, they had provided all the necessary information and documentation as required in terms of the aforesaid Notifications. However, the impugned order sought to deny the refund to the Appellant on the alleged ground of non-payment of service tax on the GTA services. In this regard, the Appellant submits that the refund claim had been supported with the copies of agreements with various buyers for the export of iron ore, shipping bills, bill of lading and export invoice, which evidenced that the excisable goods of the Appellant had been exported to various foreign buyers.
Further, the Appellant had also submitted copies of the GAR-7 challans which clearly evidenced that they had paid service tax under RCM for the receipt of GTA services which were used in relation to the export of the iron ores. The service tax returns filed Page 9 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB by the Appellant for discharge of service tax liability on the GTA services were already in possession of the department. Thus, it is the submission of the Appellant that all the relevant documents were provided to the department right from the beginning, when the Appellant filed the refund claim. No specific documents were ever called for by the department to verify the payment of service tax on the GTA services. Therefore, in the absence of any specific direction seeking a particular document from the Appellant, which the Appellant was unable to produce, the finding in the impugned order stating that the Appellant failed to establish payment of service tax on GTA services, is wholly unsustainable.
3.1. Additionally, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has also held that the Appellant has failed to establish that they have not availed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid against GTA services. In this regard, the Appellant submits that they have not availed Cenvat Credit on the tax paid on receipt of GTA services, which were used in relation to export of iron ore. In support of the above, the Appellant produced a CA Certificate before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the books of accounts and other financial records were examined and it was certified by the Chartered Accountant that the Appellant had not availed Cenvat Credit on the GTA services, which were used in relation to the export of goods. However, the said CA Certificate has been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. The said certificate is also a proof of the factum of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the Page 10 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB port. It is a trite law that a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, who is an expert in the accounting profession, has immense evidentiary value. Therefore, such certificate ought to be objectively examined. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hero Motocorp Ltd. V. CCE (Import & General), 2014 (302) E.L.T. 501 (Del.).
3.2. The Appellant further submits that the OIO dated 30.03.2017 rejected the refund claim filed by the Appellant on the ground of non-compliance of condition (iii) in column 4 of entry no. 11 of the Schedule appended to Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 [amending the Notification No. 41/2007-ST] which requires mentioning of exporter's invoice details on the lorry receipts and corresponding shipping bills. In this regard, the Appellant submits that the export of iron ore fines, per shipment, were done in bulk. This required continuous removal of iron ore from the mines to the ports, by means of trucks. In certain cases, the consignments were cleared through trucks to railway siding, for onwards movement to the port. The continuous process of transportation of export cargo was done on a day-to-day basis whereas the actual export took place much later, after aggregating the iron ore fines at the port premises. This is evident from the bulk cargo of exports undertaken by the Appellant. Therefore, it was practically not possible to mention the exporter's invoice details on the lorry receipts which are raised on a day-to-day basis, much earlier than the actual export. Further, as the export invoices are prepared only after the iron ore fines are loaded on to the vessel as per the contractual terms and conditions and factors like Page 11 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB quality, size, etc. which are variable, it was not possible to mention the exporter's invoice details on the corresponding lorry receipts before the actual export took place. It is pertinent to mention that the department issued a Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 attempting to solve the issue of co-relation thereby stating that the linkage of export goods has to be dealt in a liberalized manner. This is more so once the OIA dated 02.03.2010 recorded that there is no dispute about the factum of export of goods. Such export of goods was not possible without the goods being brought to the port.
3.3. In this regard, the Appellant submits that under similar factual scenario the CESTAT, Kolkata in the appellant's own cases for the subsequent periods in M/s Essel Mining & Industries Limited and M/s Khatau Narbheram & Company Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, 2025 (6) TMI 263 - CESTAT KOLKATA held that the admissibility of refund of service tax paid on GTA service shall be permitted by taking a liberal view in accordance with the condition requiring self-certification or CA Certificate as envisaged in the Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010. In view of the foregoing submissions, the Appellant submits that the impugned order upholding the rejection of refund claim of the Appellant is liable to be set aside.
4. Regarding the issue of excess claim of refund, the Appellant submits that during the relevant period, they had calculated the refund claim incorrectly as Rs. 1,12,49,745/-, as some entries were missed Page 12 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB while calculating the refund claim, however, subsequently they realized that there had been an inadvertent error on their part as a result of which the refund claim stood revised to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. Accordingly, vide a letter dated 24.08.2016 the revised amount along with a detailed calculation sheet were provided to the department. In view thereof, the department ought to have considered the revised refund claim and sanctioned the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. 4.1. In support of their contention that the claim can be increased later, the Appellant relied on the following decisions:
Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Collector -- 1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 (Tribunal) Repro India Ltd. v. CCE, 2016 (43) STR 203 (Tri-Mumbai) 4.1. The Appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to acknowledge the same and has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of refund of the Appellant, thereby making the impugned order completely erroneous and unsustainable.
4.2. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow the revised refund claimed by them.
5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the Appellant has not produced all documents evidencing payment of service tax on GTA service. Thus, the refund claim was rejected. Regarding the enhancement of refund claim made by the Appellant, the Ld. Dept. Representative submits Page 13 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB that these enhanced claims were not part of the original refund claim made by the Appellant. Instead of filing a fresh refund claim, the Appellant has claimed that the earlier claim filed was erroneous. Thus, he submits that the lower authorities have rightly rejected the enhanced claim of refund.
6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents.
7. We find that the refund claim filed by the Appellant was rejected on various grounds, such as:
(i) Mines do not qualify as a 'place of removal' as defined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and hence the condition (iii) stipulated under Notification No. 3/2008-ST is not fulfilled.
(ii) Appellant was unable to establish conclusively that they have duly paid service tax to the government against the GTA services.
(iii) The claim for enhancement of refund was also not allowed.
7.1. Regarding the ground raised in the impugned order that mines do not qualify as "place of removal"
as per Section 4 of the CE Act, we observe that the Notification No. 41 /2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended permits an exporter to avail refund of service tax paid on specified services and used by the exporter for the export of goods. As per the conditions prescribed under Sl. No. 11 to the aforesaid Notification, the goods are required to be transported from the place of removal to the port area for the purpose of export. We observe that neither the said Notification nor the Finance Act, Page 14 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB 1994 has defined the term 'place of removal', thus, the meaning of the said phrase ought to be borrowed from the CE Act wherein sub-clause (c) of Explanation VI of Section 4 defines the term 'place of removal' . A perusal of the definition of 'place of removal' reveals that it includes factory, or any other place or premise wherein the excisable goods are manufactured or produced. Thus, we observe that the phrase 'place of removal' is not strictly restricted to the factory premise but also includes any other place or premise of production of excisable goods. As held by CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 2009 (15) STR 540 (Tri.-Kol), the activity of mining amounts to production/manufacture of goods. In the instant case, we observe that the excisable goods viz. iron ore has been removed from their place of production viz. mine areas to the port for the purpose of exportation. Accordingly, we hold that the conditions prescribed for determining 'place of removal' as per Section 4 of CE Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. We also take note of the fact that the same issue has already been decided in favour of the Appellant by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneshwar vide Order-in-Appeal 25- 32/ST/BBSR-II/2011 dated 28.02.2011, for the subsequent period. Thus, we hold that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for non-fulfilment of the aforesaid condition is not sustainable.
8. Regarding, non submission of the documents, we observe that the impugned order sought to deny the refund to the Appellant on the alleged ground of Page 15 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB non-payment of service tax on the GTA services. In this regard, the Appellant claimed that they have filed the copies of agreements with various buyers for the export of iron ore, shipping bills, bill of lading and export invoice etc. They also claimed that they have submitted copies of the GAR-7 challans which clearly evidenced that they had paid service tax under RCM for the receipt of GTA services which were used in relation to the export of the iron ores. In this regard, we find that the impugned order has not mentioned any specific document which was not furnished by the Appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any specific direction seeking a particular document from the Appellant, which the Appellant was unable to produce, we hold that the finding in the impugned order that the Appellant failed to establish payment of service tax on GTA services, is not supported by any evidence. Accordingly, we hold that this allegation in the impugned order is not sustainable.
8.1. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has also held that the Appellant has failed to establish that they have not availed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid against GTA services. In this regard, the Appellant submitted that they have not availed Cenvat Credit on the tax paid on receipt of GTA services, which were used in relation to export of iron ore. In support of the above, the Appellant produced a CA Certificate before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the books of accounts and other financial records were examined and it was certified by the Chartered Accountant that the Appellant had not availed Cenvat Credit on the GTA services, which Page 16 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB were used in relation to the export of goods. However, we find that the said CA Certificate has been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. We observe that the said CA certificate is a proof of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the port. It is a trite law that a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, who is an expert in the accounting profession, cannot be ignored without any valid reason This view is supported by the decision in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. V. CCE (Import & General), 2014 (302) E.L.T. 501 (Del.). Thus, by relying on the CA Certificate, we hold that the Appellant has produced the proof of payment of service tax on GTA services procured for transportation of iron ore fines from mines to the port. Accordingly, we hold that the rejection of the refund claim on this ground is not sustainable.
8.2. We also observe that the refund claim filed by the Appellant was rejected on the ground of non- compliance of condition (iii) in column 4 of entry no. 11 of the Schedule appended to Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008 [amending the Notification No. 41/2007-ST] which requires mentioning of exporter's invoice details on the lorry receipts and corresponding shipping bills. In this regard, we observe that the export of iron ore fines, per shipment, were done in bulk. This required continuous removal of iron ore from the mines to the ports, by means of trucks. In certain cases, the consignments were cleared through trucks to railway siding, for onwards movement to the port. The continuous process of transportation of export cargo Page 17 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB was done on a day-to-day basis whereas the actual export took place much later, after aggregating the iron ore fines at the port premises. This is evident from the bulk cargo of exports undertaken by the Appellant. Therefore, we agree with the submission of the Appellant that it was practically not possible to mention the exporter's invoice details on the lorry receipts which are raised on a day-to-day basis, much earlier than the actual export. Further, as the export invoices are prepared only after the iron ore fines are loaded on to the vessel as per the contractual terms and conditions and factors like quality, size, etc. which are variable, it was not possible to mention the exporter's invoice details on the corresponding lorry receipts before the actual export took place. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the department issued a Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 attempting to solve the issue of co-relation thereby stating that the linkage of export goods has to be dealt in a liberalized manner. This is more so once the OIA dated 02.03.2010 recorded that there is no dispute about the factum of export of goods. Such export of goods was not possible without the goods being brought to the port. Thus, we hold that the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of non-compliance of condition (iii) in column 4 of entry no. 11 of the Schedule appended to Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, is not sustainable.
8.3. In this connection, we also observe that under similar circumstances, the CESTAT, Kolkata in the appellant's own cases for the subsequent periods in M/s Essel Mining & Industries Limited and M/s Khatau Narbheram & Company Versus Page 18 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, 2025 (6) TMI 263 - CESTAT KOLKATA held that the admissibility of refund of service tax paid on GTA service shall be permitted by taking a liberal view in accordance with the condition requiring self-certification or CA Certificate as envisaged in the Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010.
8.4. In view of the above findings we hold that the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paras are not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs. 1,12,49,745/-, as claimed in the refund application dated 30.05.2008. The Appellant is also eligible for interest as provided under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, at the applicable rate.
9. Regarding the enhanced claim of refund, we find that initially the appellant has filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,12,49,745/-. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide an order-in-original dated 23.09.2009 rejected this amount of refund claimed by the appellant. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO dated 23.09.2009 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority vide OIA dated 02.03.2010. After a period of more than six years, the Appellant by way of a letter dated 24.08.2016, intimated the department that there had been a clerical error while filing the refund claim and accordingly sought to revise the refund amount from Rs. 1,12,49,745/- to Rs. 1,23,82,560/-. In this regard, we observe that the additional claim made by the Appellant was not Page 19 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB with respect to the invoices submitted along with the earlier claim. The additional claim pertains to service tax paid under new invoices which were not part of the earlier claim. Thus, we do not agree with the submission of the appellant that the enhanced claim was a result of clerical error We have also perused the finding given by the Ld. adjudicating authority , which is reproduced below for ready reference:
16. In the circumstances as enumerated above, it is not possible to accede to the claim for refund on the face of the records. The claimant vide their letter dated 24.08.2016 has enhance the claim to Rs. 1,23,82,560/- in place of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- claimed earlier which is under this denovo proceeding. In case they have a fresh claim, it is open to them to come with different set of refund claim stating all reasons supported by suitable documentary evidences on record. Since this order is made in compliance to the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar who had pronounced his ruling on the matter Service Tax of Rs. 1,12,49, 745/-, judicial discipline demands to confine the discussion to that fact alone without any addition or alteration.
9.1. We find that the Ld. adjudicating authority has rightly decided the issue as per the directions given by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we agree with the above finding of the Ld. adjudicating authority, for rejecting the enhanced claim of Page 20 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB refund.. If the Appellant was eligible for the refund in respect of the new invoices, then they should have filed a new claim. Thus, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue that the appellant has filed the enhanced claim after six years with a view to avoid the time bar issue in respect of the new invoices for which no refund claim was filed earlier.
9.2. In support of their contention that the claim can be increased later, the Appellant relied on the following decisions:
Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Collector -- 1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 (Tribunal) Repro India Ltd. v. CCE, 2016 (43) STR 203 (Tri-Mumbai) 9.3. We have perused the decisions cited by the appellants in support of their contentions. On going through the decisions, we find that the facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the decisions cited supra. In the present case, the refund claim filed by the appellant was for an amount of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- which has been processed and decided by the Ld. adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of reconsideration of the earlier refund rejected by the adjudicating authority with certain directions. In the denovo adjudication, the adjudicating authority is duty bound to decide the case only as per the directions given by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
However, we find that in the cases cited by the Appellant, the facts are totally different. Thus, we Page 21 of 21 Appeal No.: E/78352/2018-DB observe that the decisions cited by this appellant are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we agree with the finding of the ld. adjudicating authority that the scope of the adjudicating authority should be confined only to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeal) with respect to the earlier refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,12,49,745/- Thus, we hold that the refund amount with respect to the enhanced refund has been rightly rejected by the lower authorities.
10. In the result, we pass the following order: -
(i) We hold that the Appellant is eligible for the refund of Rs. 1,12,49,745/- as per the refund claim filed by the Appellant on 30.05.2008.
The Appellant is also eligible for interest as provided under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, at the applicable rate.
(ii) The Appellant is not eligible for the enhanced refund claimed vide letter dated 24.08.2016.
11. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of on the above terms.
(Order Pronounced in Open court on 20.02.2026) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RKP