TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the GTA services utilized by them. They were paying Service Tax on "Reverse Charge basis" on GTA Services. Vide Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012, when "food stuff" is transported, the same would be exempted from payment of Service Tax towards GTA expenses. However, without noticing this exemption, the Appellant continued to pay the Service Tax on "Reverse Charge Basis" during the period July 2013 to March 2014. After noticing that they have paid Service Tax which is not required to be paid because of exemption granted under Notification No.25/2012- ST dated 20/06/2012 as amended by Notification No. 03/2013-ST dated 01/03/2013, they have filed their refund claim for Rs.13,02,317/-. Show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es are in error in holding that the exemption is not applicable in their case. 4. In respect of the rejection of refund claim on account of time bar in terms of Section 11B, he submits that the Appellant has paid the Service Tax which is not required to be paid in the first place. In such a case, it has been held by the various Tribunals and Supreme Court that when Service Tax has been paid by mistake, the provision of Section 11B could not be applicable. He relies on the following case laws:- 1. Venkatraman Guhaprasad Vs. Commr. of GST & C. Ex., Chennai, 2020 (42) G.S.T.L. 124 (Tri.-Chennai) 2. Commr. V. KVR Construction 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J70 (S.C.) 3. Parijat Construction Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Nashik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to reduce the burden of tax on primary food stuff like flour, rice, sugar etc. To consider biscuit, a processed food item under the ambit of the said notification would be contrary to the very purpose and essence of the notification and hence, cannot be considered. Therefore, the instant application for refund is liable for rejection on this very ground. Order I reject refund application of Rs.13,02,317/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs two thousand Three hundred and Seventeen) under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. Though he has made a reference about the Biscuits not being "food stuff", in the discussions, he has not rejected the refund claim on this account in the Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o use cannot be held to be foodstuff. We find no merits in the above stand of the Revenue. The foodstuff is a clear, unambiguous word and there is nothing to indicate that the same would apply to transportation of the raw material etc. which have to be further converted into a final edible product.[Emphasis supplied] 3. In view of the foregoing, we find no merits in the revenue's appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. 11. So far as the issue as to whether the refund is covered by time bar under Section 11B is concerned, in the case of Commr. of C. E. (Appeals), Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction- 2012 (26) STR 195 (Kar.), High Court of Karnatka has held as under:- 22. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such amount. By any stretch of imagination, it will not amount to duty of excise to attract Section 11B. Therefore, it is outside the purview of Section 11B of the Act. [Emphasis supplied] Affirmed by Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner Vs. KVR Construction reported in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J70 (S.C.). 12. Similarly, in the case of following cases, the co-ordinate Benches have held that refund claims filed on account of Service Tax paid by mistake, are not governed by the time limit specified under Section 11B. 1. Venkatraman Guhaprasad Vs. Commr. of GST & C. Ex., Chennai, 2020 (42) G.S.T.L. 124 (Tri.-Chennai) 2. Commr. V. KVR Construction 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J70 (S.C.) 3. Parijat Construction Vs. Commr. ....