Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd

[ Arising out of OIA-89/2008/STC/RAJU/COMMR-A-/AHD dtd 3.6.2008 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-SERVICE TAX  AHMEDABAD ]

Commissioner of Service Tax, AHMEDABAD - Appellant(s)

Vs

M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 24/9/2015

ORDER No. A/11413 / 2015 Dated 24.09.2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was set aside.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents filed the refund claim of Rs 2,22,645/- as they have erroneously paid Service Tax on Technical Testing and Analysis Service covered under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on merit and limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order on both the score i.e., on merit and limitation.

3. Both the sides argued at length. After considering the amount itself and the grounds on limitation, we find that the impugned order is liable to upheld on limitation without going into merit. For the proper appreciation, the findings of the Commissioner is reproduced below:

 Now coming to time bar issue. It is seen from the correspondence and OIO that claim was originally filed on 3.1.2007. Thereafter, due to demand of certain documents and signature on the revenue stamp, certain correspondence took place between revenue and the appellant. The deficiencies were of technical nature. The claim was returned by the revenue to the appellant on 11.6.2007 and was again returned by appellant in August 07. Clearly the original claim was filed within time. The act of department in returning the claim was without jurisdiction.

4. In view of the discussion, we upheld the impugned order on limitation. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The cross objection filed by the respondent is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami