TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion but except that he upheld the order-in-original passed by the first adjudicating authority. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant filed refund claim under Section 11B of CETA, 1985 for Rs. 5,81,817/- on 16th April, 2015 on the ground that they have wrongly paid service tax during the period April-2014 to March-2015 on specified services on which exemption was available to appellant under Sr. No. 21 (d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012. The appellant submitted refund claim of Rs. 5,41,322/- on 18th May, 2015. The refund was sought on the premise that GTA service received in relation to goods manufactured by appellant are eligible for exemption from payment of service tax on freight with effect f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order considered the issue whether appellant is eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 21 (d) of Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012 as amended, in respect of input and final product transported to and fro to factory. The learned Commissioner also considered the issue whether on non-submission of document at service tax office and appellant's unavailability to prove that incidence of tax has not passed on to customers are enough ground to reject the claim or not. Regarding the first issue, the learned Commissioner held that all edible items stated in the show cause notice that qualified for food stuff and transported by appellant are entitled for exemption under Sr. No. 21 of the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 28th June, 2012 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opies of invoices / bilties to substantiate their claim and in addition thereto, as the record with regard to whole year would be bulky, the appellant had also requested the adjudicating authority, to direct any concerned officer to inspect the said documents. However, the authorities below did not consider the sample copies of invoices / bilties placed by the appellant on record. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and must be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the authorities below grossly erred in rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant in as much as the appellant being eligible for exemption from payment of service tax and was not required to pay the service tax but the same wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf is tenable in law, therefore, the order under challenge needs to be modified to that extent that the amount of refund allowed of Rs. 3,17,031/- shall be refunded to the appellant. Further, in respect of amount which was rejected under limitation following the ruling by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, it is held that the said amount did not constitute service tax and therefore, was not liable to be subjected to the provisions of Section 11B in so far as limitation is concerned and therefore, the said amount needs to be refunded to the appellant. As held earlier, since the entire amount was paid as reverse charge, the incidence had not been passed on to anybody, but self and therefore the enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how Cause Notice that qualified for food stuff and transported by appellant are entitled for exemption under Sr. no. 21 of the Notification no. 25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 as amended, for period covered under show cause notice. No appeal has been filed by the department against the above mentioned findings. Therefore, it has become final. It is pertinent to mention here that the finding of the Commissioner that exemption under Sr. No. 21 (d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012 as amended must be interpreted in such a way so as to hold that edible items stated in the show cause notice qualified for foodstuff which were transported by appellant during the period covered under the show cause notice and they are entitled for ....