2016 (4) TMI 845

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt is engaged in the manufacture of exempted excisable goods, namely, Urea. The appellant is duly registered with the Central Excise Commissionerate in Kota. For manufacture of Urea, natural gas is used as a raw material, which the appellant procures from M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai (RGTIL). Transmission charges for transportation of Natural gas are regulated by PNGRB. During the period April 2009 to May 2010, RGTIL supplied natural gas to the appellant at the rate of 68.56 MMBTU. Since natural gas is regulated and the price determined by the regulatory authority, the charges for the said period was finalized on 9.6.2010 by PNGRB @ 67.64 MMBTU. For adjusting the excess amount charged, the supplier M/s RGTIL i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und claim cannot be denied to the appellant, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. [2014 35 STR 492 Albd] and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs Commr. of Customs and Central Excise [2014-VIL-539-CESTAT-DEL-ST]. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Sh. MR Sharma reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. To support rejection of refund application by Revenue, the Ld. DR has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. [2015 (318) ELT 617 (S.C.]. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agraph in the said decision are extracted herein below. "6. The fact that the recipient of the service is also entitled to file a claim for refund is no longer res-integra. The issue stand concluded by the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). This decision was followed in Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd., vs. CCE, Meerut-II 2014 (35) STR 422 (Tri. Del.). If the appellant which is a recipient of a service which is admittedly not taxable files a claim for refund within the prescribed period of limitation, it is axiomatic that it is entitled to do so before the Commissionerate under whose jurisdiction it pursues its taxable activities, business or is a registrant; or....