TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appellate authority. 1.1 Brief facts leading to the present dispute are that the Appellant is a steamer agent providing services to foreign based vessel owners/ shipping lines. The Government of India vide Notification No. 01/2017-ST dated 12.01.2017 (by way of carrying out amendment in Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012) withdrew the exemption from payment service tax on ocean freight. The said exemption was withdrawn with effect from 22.01.2017. Simultaneously, Service Tax Rules, 1994 were also amended to give effect that so far as import of services in the nature of ocean freight is concerned the person liable to pay service tax would be steamer agent under reverse charge mechanism. Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of service tax on ocean freight charges is ultra vires. The said decision was rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on 06.09.2019. 1.4 The Appellant filed the refund application for refund of Rs.1,85,79,431/- before the Assistant Commissioner, Gandhidham on 23.11.2020. The Appellant was issued the show cause notice dated 28.12.2020 proposing to reject the refund claim filed by the Appellant on the ground that the refund application has been filed by the Appellant on 23.11.2020 in pursuance of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of M/s. SAL Steel Ltd. dated 06.09.2019referred to supra. Therefore, it was alleged that the refund claim filed by the Appellant is time barred in terms of Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant has pointed out before us that the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of SAL Steel Ltd. referred to supra was challenged by the revenue department before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the revenue department in case of M/s. Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2023 (9) TMI 305 - SC on 01.09.2023. On this basis Ld. Counsel have submitted that the time limit of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be considered from 01.09.2023 and the Appellant has filed refund claim even before that. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 to buttress their arguments that in view of the specific provisions to gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortified with the fact that the show cause notice dated 28.12.2020 in the present case itself has recorded that the revenue department did not accept the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of SAL Steel Ltd. supra and revenue department preferred further appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, rejection of refund application filed by the Appellant on this count is not sustainable. 4.3 We further find force in the arguments of the Appellant that the refund claim is now squarely covered within the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 which reads as under: "(3) Every claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law ...... and any amount eventually accruing .... shall be paid in cash ..". It is very widely worded in as much as it uses the expression "CENVAT credit" and also "any other amount paid". Even if, we take it that petitioner has made voluntary deposit, that amount has to be shown as CENVAT credit in the account of petitioner. In the alternative, it would certainly come under the category "or any other amount paid". Therefore, either way the amount paid by petitioner, admittedly, has to be refunded. In fact, it is also admitted that an amount of Rs.10,48,11,737/- is refundable to petitioner. The credit of refund is the only issue because Mr.Adik, as an officer of this court....