TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant had filed rebate claim for the Service Tax paid on the Airport Services utilized towards export of goods; the first claim for the refund of Rs. 43,01,324/- was made on 30.03.2017 and thereafter, a revised claim for refund of Rs. 1,17,06,030/- based on subsequent payment made to the service provider was made on 21.08.2017; that a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2017 was issued proposing to reject an amount of such Swachh Bharat Cess claimed by the appellant; that thereafter, Order-in-Original No. 19/2018-(R) dated 23.03.2018 was passed, confirming the proposal made in the Show Cause Notice and rejecting the claim of Swachh Bharat Cess; that Review Appeal was filed by the Revenue before the First Appellate Authority contending that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of C.Ex., Chennai-I v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation [2017 (354) E.L.T. 585 (Mad.)] 2.4 He also further submitted that he is raising a fresh legal ground for the first time before this forum that the Reviewing Authority having traversed beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, the rejection of refund/rebate claim as also the impugned order are liable to be set aside. 3.1 Per contra, Shri L. Nandakumar, Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. In support, he also relied on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Timblo Drydrocks Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex., Goa [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 497 (Tri. - Mum.)]; (ii) M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [2002 (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by legislation, given the expropriatary consequences of such a limitation period. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspect) cannot be formulated or prescribed by subordinate legislation. The parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations. Subordinate legislation cannot prevail or be made in such cases. The imposition of period of limitation, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore, cannot prevail. The Jain Irrigation case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case as what was decided in the said case was as to what was 'the place of removal' which is not the case herein. In view of my above discussions, I am of the view that the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefor. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby." If the view taken by the authorities below were to be upheld, the person such as the appellant, who has exported the goods and used certain services for the same, and for whose benefit the Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. has been issued in the first place, will not get the benefit. A literal interpretation of Clause 3(b) would....