AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Revenue is in appeal against the order in appeal dated 26.3.2009 which sustained the sanction of refund of Rs.4,56,056/- for the period Jan, 2008 to
March 2008 in terms of Notification No.41/2007 dated 6.10.2007. Revenue has contended that:
(i) The issue of time bar has not been properly considered by Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as the refund claim was not filed within the
prescribed time before the proper jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
(ii) The refund of service tax paid on LDD and TSC charges paid by the respondent to CONCOR for keeping a loaded container in ICD beyond the
initial free period did not pertain to GTA service but pertained to storage and warehousing service while refund has been sanctioned treating the same
as part of GTA service.
Ld. Advocate for respondent stated that both the contentions of Revenue have been dealt with by the lower authorities.
We have considered Revenue's contentions. We find that the issue of sanction of refund claim of service tax paid on LDD & TSC charges has
been discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) citing CBEC Circular 104/07/2008-ST wherein it has been clarified that such storage/ temporary
warehousing facility is a part and parcel of Goods Transport Agency service. Further as has been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) the
respondent had first filed refund claim within 60 days from the end of relevant quarter before Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Indore
who after considerable period advised that the claim should be filed before Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise of another Division which the
respondent did on 10.6.2008. In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable on the part of lower authorities to treat the refund claim as having been
filed with Revenue within the prescribed period of two months from the end of the relevant quarter. In the case of CST Mumbai Vs. Reliance
Communication - 2008 (11) STR 258, such resubmitted claim was treated to be in continuation of earlier claim and therefore not hit by time-bar.
In the circumstances, we do not find any such infirmity in the impugned order as to warrant appellate interference. Therefore the appeal is
dismissed.