TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lecithin etc. The appellant filed refund applications under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 16.10.2007, as amended from time to time claiming service tax paid in respect of the exported goods. Adjudicating authority sanctioned part of the amounts of refund claims while rejecting the part of the amount. Appellant herein contested the matter in the higher judicial fora and got relief for the amounts which were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the order of the first appellate authority, sanctioning the refund to the appellant (which was rejected by the adjudicating authority), was also upheld by the Tribunal. Pursuant to such an order, the lower authorities have refunded the amount to the appellant. Appellants, thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of Section 93 regarding the exemptions, that may be granted to the appellant. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has erred in coming to the conclusion that once a notification has been issued under the provisions of Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, than the procedure prescribed in the said notification has to be followed and there is no discretion for payment of interest on delayed refunds. 4. Learned Additional Commissioner (A.R.) would submit that the provisions of Section 11B, cannot be invoked in this case. It is his submission that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act are not attracted in this case inasmuch as the refund is not sanctioned under the Central Excise Act. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities are entirely different. It was submitted that even though photocopies were shown and enclosed to the appeal memorandum, original documents have been submitted to the department. I would like the original adjudicating authority to verify once again and see whether relevant details are available in lorry receipt or not. If they are not available the photocopy of the lorry receipt can be taken and made part of the order-in-original so that it becomes clear that the original documents do not have the relevant details relating to export goods. Another ground taken by the lower authorities for rejecting the claim is that the amount of Service tax paid towards GTA services for bringing the empty container to the factory for stuffing is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of the goods for exportation. Therefore the finding that the claim is time-barred because it is filed beyond the period when counted from the date of ARE-1 is appears to be against the provisions of Notification No. 41/07-S.T., dated 6-10-2007. This aspect has to be once again examined in the light of statute. Further it is also noticed that the observation of the lower authority in para 12 of the order-in-original in the case of Appeal No. ST/102/2010 that interest is not admissible since provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable is against the law. I find that provisions of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 clearly provide that provisions of Section 11BB are made applicable to service tax matters. I am s....