2019 (7) TMI 1300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR' for short). 1.2 The Adjudicating Authority after scrutinizing the claim, vide Order-in-Original no. 78/2014 (Refund) dated 24.06.2014, however, sanctioned only a partial refund and rejected the balance amount which was paid under reverse charge mechanism by the appellant. Aggrieved by the above partial rejection, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 415/2015 (CXA-II) dated 21.12.2015 rejected the appellant's claim. Against the above Order-in-Appeal, the appellant filed appeal before this forum and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42402/2016 dated 07.12.2016 also rejected the appeal. 1.3 It is an admitted position that both the assessee as well as the Revenue ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2017 (354) E.L.T. 577 (Guj.); (iv) Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 21 (Guj.); (v) Parijat Construction Vs. C.C.E., Nashik - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.); (vi) Hindustan Cocoa Products Vs. Union of India - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 525 (Bom.); (vii) Hexacom (I) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. - Del.); (viii) C.C.E., Raipur Vs. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 161 (Tri. - Del.); (ix) C.C.E., Bangalore-III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar.); (x) Monnet International Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi - 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 380 (Tri. - Del.); ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant despite the fact that there was no application for condonation of delay and despite the fact that the so-called 'advice' was not even an obiter. This is because, in my opinion, the refund accrued to the assessee-appellant by virtue of its export and not as a consequence of an order of the Tribunal. 6.2 The relevant facts in brief before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech (supra) are as under: "3. After making the payment, the appellant realised that under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, inserted w.e.f. 1-7-2012, the appellant did not have a liability to pay Service Tax. After realising this error, the appellant on 30-6-2016 made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (....