TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent is an exporter of manufactured cotton yarn. It sought refund on the strength of Notification No.41 of 2007, as amended by later Notifications Nos.17/2008, 3/2008 and 33/2008. The adjudicating authority in the first instance rejected the claims; the matter was remitted by the appellate commissioner upon which the refund was partly granted to the tune of `8.48 lakhs. The assessee once again appealed. In the course of the appeal, the commissioner - in the order-in-appeal dated 02.09.2011, held that substantial exports of the assessee were eligible for service tax refund - approximating `43.44 lakhs. The commissioner, however, remitted the matter for working out the refund claims having regard to the document particulars. Specific ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in the matter has already attained finality by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 02.09.2011. If at all, the adjudicating authority wanted to re-examine all the refund claims, the adjudicating authority is required to be issue fresh show cause notice which the adjudicating authority has failed to do so. In the circumstances, the order dated 02. 09.2011 has attained finality as held by the Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd., Revenue has not preferred any appeal against that order. In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority has no right to re-examine the refund claim but only can verify the documents as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. On merits also I have considered the issue. In the Notification No.41/2007, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of publication in the Official Gazette. It is also contended that the base notification (No.41/2007) itself superseded the earlier notification (i.e. No.40/2007 dated 17.09.2007. That notification had listed only services. The subsequent base notification clearly saved only those actions which had actually been done or omitted to be done. Reliance is placed upon the term "except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession". Thus, it was urged that the benefit of refund notifications, was only in respect of services made after their publication. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. Spice Telecom 2006 (203) ELT 538 (S.C.) and Jay Mahakali Rolling Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it should be construed as clarificatory. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT A66 (SC). It also relied upon the opinion of the CESTAT in its judgment i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 2014 (299) ELT 221 (Mum.). It was next urged that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the remand and thereby violated the law. Counsel contended that neither in the original proceeding nor even on the first remand was the issue of entitlement or eligibility of the assessee to claim the refund ever put to it. In the circumstances, the adjudicating authority could not have in the pretext of working out the remand by the commissioner, who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orter and used for export of goods (hereinafter referred to as said goods), from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 and section 66A of the said Finance Act, subject to the conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Schedule." It is quite apparent that the intent of the notification was only to save firstly what had been done or omitted to be done - in respect of the services that were included and secondly also to grant the benefit of the notifications of included services thereafter as is apparent from the use of the word "hereby". This view gets support from the subsequent notifications - 17/2008 and 33/2008 both of which clearly state that they would come into force on the dates of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esa Goa Ltd.'s case (supra) the judgment in M/s W.P.I.L. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Excise 2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC) it was considered that Sesa Goa Ltd.'s case (supra) dealt with pumps. The revenue had sought to urge that the amendment of the original notification applied prospectively. The Supreme Court negatived the contention and held that the assessee's argument that both power pressing pumps as well as part of pressing pumps used for manufacturing during the entry having exempted having regard to tenure of the original notification itself. Here facts are entirely different. Specific services relatable to export were included but not all. Others were included and notified on separate specific dates. In the circumstances, the ass....