TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ischarges tax under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as recipient of service towards transportation of goods by road. 2. The Appellant paid freight towards transportation of "de-oiled cakes" done by various goods transport agencies, appointed by the Appellant against invoices raised on the Appellant for the same. The de-oiled cakes are used by the Appellant for the purpose of feeding the poultry and are not sold to any independent buyers. 3. During the period from April 2013 to March 2014, the Appellant paid Rs. 1,62,78,610/- towards transportation charges of such de-oiled cakes and accordingly paid Rs. 5,03,009/- towards service tax. However, after paying the service tax amounting to Rs. 5,03,009/-, the Appellant realized that no service tax was payable in respect of transportation of oiled cakes as per Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification 3/2013-S.T. dated 01.03.2013. 4. Accordingly, the Appellant filed a claim for refund of the said amount on 28.03.2014 before the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The refund application in Form-R was accompanied by copies of e-receipts of service tax payments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 21(c) of the said Notification in their ST-3 returns. However, de-oiled cakes fall under Sl. No. 20(j). Additionally, it cannot be ascertained if the Appellant claimed exemption for the amount paid by them to the transporter in the return, thereby leading to a double claim. • the goods were transported to certain premises of the Appellant which were not covered under the Appellant's service tax registration certificate. • from the relevant bills, challans and ST-3 return, it cannot be separately determined that the amount of Rs. 5,03,009/- claimed as refund was paid towards transportation of de-oiled cakes. • the transport related documents submitted by Appellant bear the date 14.01.2014, however, the refund is claimed for the period April 2013 to September 2013. 8. Being aggrieved by such order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal." 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made the following submissions: - A.1 The Appellant submits that the only legal ground on which the underlying SCN proposed to deny the refund was that the de-oiled cakes are not covered under the Exemption Notification. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground that the Mega Exemption Notification only exempts 'chemical fertilizers and oilcakes' but not 'de-oiled cakes'. As a matter of fact, the impugned order vide para 6 [Pg 19 of the Memorandum of Appeal] has already held that there is no difference between de-oiled cakes and oiled cakes. Thus, the Appellant fails to understand the logic behind denying the refund by passing the impugned order. On one hand, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has agreed that the Appellant is eligible to claim exemption under the Notification, however, still the impugned order has gone beyond the scope of SCN to deny the refund. A.6 Point-wise rebuttal of the grounds for rejection of refund in the impugned order is as under: Grounds of rejection Specific Rebuttal a. The Appellant claimed exemption under Sl. No. 20(h), 21(a) and 21(c) of the said Notification in their ST-3 returns. However, exemption on transportation of de-oiled cakes falls under Sl. No. 20(j). Additionally, it cannot be ascertained if the Appellant claimed exemption for the amount paid by them to the transporter in the return, thereby leading to a double claim. It is solely f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is hereby submitted that the findings of the impugned order, apart from being factually incorrect and arbitrary, are also beyond the scope of SCN. A.9 It is a settled principle of law that show cause notice is the foundation on which the Department builds its case and adjudication beyond the show cause notice is not sustainable in law. It has been held in a number of decisions that when an order goes beyond the allegations mentioned in the SCN, such order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments: • M/s Tata Steel Utilities & Infrastructure Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, 2025 (4) TMI 1187- CESTAT Kolkata • M/s D.D. International Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, 2025 (3) TMI 345- CESTAT Kolkata • M/s P.K. Agarwalla v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolkata, 2024 (8) TMI 716-CESTAT Kolkata • Inox Leisure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad - 2022 (60) G.S.T.L. 326 (Tri. - Hyd.) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as amount claimed by the Appellant has not been refunded to the Appellant within the stipulated time period of three months from the date of filing of refund application. C.2 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following: • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UOI, 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) • The Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru v. Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 (3) TMI 1096 - Karnataka High Court C.3 In the instant case, the impugned order has erroneously denied refund claim of the Appellant on technical grounds not raised while issuing the SCN. Since, the refund claim of the Appellant is not barred by period of limitation, therefore, Appellant is entitled to receive interest on delayed payment of refund, in accordance with Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. C.4 Therefore, the Appellant submits that, since the amount claimed has not been refunded to the Appellant within the stipulated time period of three months from the date of filing of refund application, the Appellant is entitled to interes....