Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

Central Excise Appeal No. 116 of 2014. Case: Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. and S.T. Vs Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd.. High Court of Allahabad (India)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberCentral Excise Appeal No. 116 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Adv. and For Respondents: Bharat Ji Agrawal, Sr. Counsel, Shubham Agrawal and A.S. Dass, Advs.
JudgesDr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. and Dilip Gupta, J.
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11B; Finance Act, 1994 - Section 65(105)(zzz)
Citation2014 (35) STR 492 (All)
Judgement DateWednesday July 02, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Allahabad (India)

Order:

  1. This appeal by the revenue arises from the decision of the CESTAT dated 9 December, 2013 [2014 (35) S.T.R. 422 (Tribunal)] on an appeal by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee having been allowed, the refund claim of the assessee in respect of certain tax amounting to Rs. 16,99,714/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been granted. The revenue has raised two questions of law in the appeal, which read as follows:

    "I. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in allowing the refund, without considering provisions of limitation provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

    1. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in allowing the refund, without considering provisions of unjust enrichment provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?"

  2. The assessee purchased natural gas through a pipeline from Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. (RGTIL). The transmission charges payable by the assessee to RGTIL were fixed by a statutory body, namely the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board. Between April, 2009 and May, 2010, RGTIL had provided to the assessee a taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Invoices were raised by RGTIL upon the assessee on the basis of the tariff which was initially notified by the statutory board. Subsequently the initial tariff was subjected to downward revision by the statutory board. RGTIL had, however, in the meantime collected excess transmission charges from the assessee for the supply of natural gas. The difference was credited by RGTIL to the account of the assessee by raising credit notes. Tax had been initially remitted by RGTIL on the basis of the original tariff fixed by the board. Since the tariff had been revised downward, the assessee applied for the refund of a proportionate part of the service tax remitted by RGTIL and which was borne by the assessee. The taxable service in question was "transport of goods other than water through pipeline and other conduit."

  3. Initially, by an order dated 5 April, 2011, the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division-V rejected the refund application on the ground that the application should have been made to the Commissionerate within whose jurisdiction the applicant operated.

  4. The claim was thereafter preferred to the Assistant Commissioner, Bareilly. On 23 December, 2011, the Assistant Commissioner, Bareilly sanctioned the refund. However, an appeal was filed by the revenue which...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT