Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Indore vs M/S National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd on 5 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 5.11.2015
Appeal No. ST/529/2009-CU(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/82/09 dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CCE, Indore Appellant
Vs.
M/s National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. - for the Appellant
Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 53532/2015
Per R.K. Singh :
Revenue is in appeal against the order in appeal dated 26.3.2009 which sustained the sanction of refund of Rs.4,56,056/- for the period Jan, 2008 to March 2008 in terms of Notification No. 41/2007 dated 6.10.2007. Revenue has contended that :
(i) The issue of time bar has not been properly considered by Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as the refund claim was not filed within the prescribed time before the proper jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
(ii) The refund of service tax paid on LDD and TSC charges paid by the respondent to CONCOR for keeping a loaded container in ICD beyond the initial free period did not pertain to GTA service but pertained to storage and warehousing service while refund has been sanctioned treating the same as part of GTA service.
2. Ld. Advocate for respondent stated that both the contentions of Revenue have been dealt with by the lower authorities.
3. We have considered Revenues contentions. We find that the issue of sanction of refund claim of service tax paid on LDD & TSC charges has been discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) citing CBEC Circular 104/07/2008-ST wherein it has been clarified that such storage/ temporary warehousing facility is a part and parcel of Goods Transport Agency service. Further as has been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) the respondent had first filed refund claim within 60 days from the end of relevant quarter before Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Indore who after considerable period advised that the claim should be filed before Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise of another Division which the respondent did on 10.6.2008. In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable on the part of lower authorities to treat the refund claim as having been filed with Revenue within the prescribed period of two months from the end of the relevant quarter. In the case of CST Mumbai Vs. Reliance Communication 2008 (11) STR 258, such resubmitted claim was treated to be in continuation of earlier claim and therefore not hit by time-bar.
4. In the circumstances, we do not find any such infirmity in the impugned order as to warrant appellate interference. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1