Case Law Details
Comexx Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
We find that the decisions relied on by the appellant in his support were passed without appreciating the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra) and in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI – 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). In both these decisions it has been categorically held that refund under Central Excise Act would be governed by Section 11B. In these circumstances, we find that the refund claim filed by the appellant would be governed by the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the refund was filed after expiry of limitation the same cannot be entertained.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal has been filed by M/s. Comexx against rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant M/s. Comexx are an authorized agent for M/s. Zhangjiagang Kailin Trading Company Limited located in China. The appellant were registered with Service Tax Commissionerate under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant pointed out that they are engaged in booking orders for its foreign principals. He pointed out that appellant receive commission for the services in convertible foreign currency. The appellants have paid service tax on the said amount received as commission. He pointed out that they are seeking refund of the said amount of service tax paid by them as they were not liable to pay any service tax.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
