Raymond Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/172-174/BEL/2010 dated 14.07.2010 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

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

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== Raymond Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Prasad Paranjape for Appellant Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 26/08/2015 Date of Decision : 26/08/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/172-174/BEL/2010 dated 14.07.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim filed by the appellant as per the notification no. 41/2007-ST dated 6.1.2007 on account of service tax paid an export commission to agents located outside India for the quarter of April 2008 to June 2008 and also subsequent quarter. Both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim only on the question of limitation, by holding that the refund claim for the quarter April to June 2008 has been filed on 16.4.2009 and the refund claim for the quarter July to September 2008 has been filed on 26 June 2009, after period of more than 8 months. We find that the issue is no more res-integral, as this bench in the appellants own case in appeal no. ST/661/2010 and appeal no. ST/41/2011 on identical issue for the earlier period considered in detail and held in the favor of the appellant by final order no A/829/13/SHB dated 1.11.2013 and final order no. A/437/14/SMB dated 7.2.2014. On perusal of the issues in those two cases and as the case is hand, when we find it so. As a view in an identical issue is already taken in the favor of the appellant, we do not fine any reason to deviate from such a view already taken, as there is no dispute as to facts that the appellant is eligible for the refund of amount of service tax paid on export commission.

4. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to deviate from a view already taken and hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to set aside and we do so. The impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Pronounced in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No.ST/531 to 533/10-Mum