2024 (11) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable oils like Vanaspati Ghee, Refined Soya bean Oil, Mustard Oil, Refined Palm Oil, Maize Oil, Cottonseed Oil etc. They had imported Crude Degummed Soya bean Oil and Crude Palm Oil from different countries. They are registered with the Service Tax Department for discharging their service tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). On 27.11.2020, appellants filed a refund claim of service tax Rs.12,64,207/-, interest Rs.2,70,439/- and penalty Rs. 1,10,334/-, aggregating Rs. 16,44,980/-. The refund was filed on account of the service tax paid by appellants under Reverse Charge Mechanism during the months of June, 2017, July 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se cited above. He further submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held in the cited case that the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) and 6(7CA) of the erstwhile Service Tax Rules inserted vide Notification Nos. 15 & 16/2017-ST, both dated 13.04.2017 for levy of service tax on the ocean freight charged for transportation of imported goods by a vessel from outside India on reverse charge basis to Customs station of clearance in India are ultravires and the impugned rules and notifications are unenforceable. He further submits that as the legal provisions imposing tax have been held to be ultra-vires, the Central Government does not have the authority to retain the tax collected from the assessee and it merits to be refunded back to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9; therefore the refund of Rs.5,28,645/- is hit by limitation and is liable to be rejected. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that as per letter dated 20.06.2020 of the appellant addressed to the Superintendent (Prev.), CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana intimated that they have paid the entire liability of service tax including interest and penalty of Rs.11,16,335/- on ocean freight for the period from 23.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 on dated 30.11.2019 and also requested that they do not want Show Cause Notice and the case may kindly be closed. Accordingly, on request of the appellant, no Show Cause Notice was issued and the proceedings were concluded by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they have filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the said decision. It is also a fact that no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court cited supra. In view of this, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is binding on the Department. Further, I find that amount of Rs.5,28,645/- which was deposited by the appellant on regular basis during the month of June 2017 and July 2017 as service tax under the relevant accounting head and duly reflected in their service tax returns. Further, the appellant has not applied for refund within a period of one year from the date of the High Court's order dated 06.09.2019. Therefore to the extent of refund claim of Rs.5,28,645/-, it ....