VKJ Latest News Update

VKJ Law Offices of Vinay K. Jain Advocates & Solicitors

ST – Appeal against rejection of rebate claim is not maintainable before CESTAT – liberty granted to assessee to approach Revisionary authority: CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2449-CESTAT-BANG

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

Appeal No. ST/21493/2018-SM

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CAC-EXCUS-000-APP-526-2018, Dated: 31.05.2018
Passed by Commissioner of Central Tax, COCHIN (Appeal)

Date of Hearing: 12.03.2019
Date of Decision: 12.03.2019

M/s IMAGE
KUNNATH LANE PALARIVATTOM
KOCHI-682025, KERALA

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE
COCHIN C R BUILDINGS, I S PRESS ROAD
COCHIN-682018, KERALA

Appellant Rep by: Mr Raghavendra B Hanji, Adv.
Respondent Rep by: Mrs Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent AR

CORAM: S S Garg Member (J)

ST – The assessee is engaged in export of granulated blast furnace slag – They have filed a rebate claim of service tax paid on specified services used for export of granulated blast furnace slag from Gangavaram Port, Andhra Pradesh in terms of Notfn 41/2012-ST – Thereafter, a SCN was issued proposing to reject the claim on various grounds – The present appeal is not maintainable before Tribunal and therefore dismiss the appeal being not maintainable – However, liberty granted to the assessee to approach the Revisionary Authority which is competent under the Act to entertain and decide the rebate claims – Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable: CESTAT

Appeal dismissed

FINAL ORDER NO. 20256/2019

Per: S S Garg:

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in export of granulated blast furnace slag. They have filed a rebate claim of service tax of Rs.5,88,542/- paid on specified services used for the export of granulated blast furnace slag from Gangavaram Port, Andhra Pradesh during July 2014 in terms of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to reject the claim on various grounds. After following the due process, the original authority rejected the refund claim in terms of Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (AR), who also rejected the said appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that it is a rebate claim filed in terms of Notification No.41/2012 dated 29.6.2012. He fairly conceded that in the case of rebate claim, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction lies with the Revisionary Authority based at New Delhi.

5. The learned AR also objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain claim relating to rebate.

6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, in case of rebate, the jurisdiction lies with the Revisionary Authority based at New Delhi. In view of this, I hold that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal and therefore dismiss the appeal being not maintainable. However, I grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Revisionary Authority which is competent under the Act to entertain and decide the rebate claims. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 12.03.2019)

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: