2021-TIOL-584-CESTAT-DEL

Shri Shyam Ingot And Casting Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE

CX - COD - The impugned order was not served upon appellant and it was only on or about 15.05.2019 they came to know about the impugned order when they received a communication from Range Superintendent directing to pay the adjudicated dues alongwith interest as the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) has been rejected - Thereafter, appellant immediately vide letter dated 16.05.2019 approached the office of Commissioner (Appeals) mentioning that they have not received the order - The O-I-A was served on next date, i.e., 17.05.2019 by hand, thereafter the appellant has filed the present appeal on 10.06.2019 - It is informed that the appellant have died in the recent past on 19.04.2021, and have also filed a copy of death certificate dated 18.05.2021 - The delay has been reasonably explained and there appears to be no deliberate latches on the part of appellant - Accordingly, condonation of delay application is allowed - As the appellant have died, this appeal abates: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-583-CESTAT-KOL

Shree Mahabir Builders Vs CCGST & CX

ST - The appellant is engaged in rendering of services in nature of construction work to Garrison Engineer Barrackpore, Military Engineering Services (MES), Ministry of Defence, Government of India and Garrison Engineer (Central) Kolkata - Said services were fully exempted from payment of Service Tax up to March, 2015 - However, w.e.f. 01.04.2015, service became taxable vide Notification No. 6/2015-S.T. and appellant started collecting Service Tax from MES and deposited the same to credit of Central Government - Subsequently in Budget 2016, notified vide Notification No. 9/2016-S.T., exemption for contracts entered prior to 01.03.2015 was restored and vide Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994, the Central Government allowed the refund of Service Tax, if already paid, to be claimed within six months from the date of enactment of Finance Act, 2016 - Accordingly, appellant filed a refund claim in the prescribed Form-R submitting all the relevant documents - Same was rejected declaring it as inadmissible in terms of provisions as laid down in Notification No. 9/2016-S.T., as amended vide FA, 2016 - The appellant was required to file the claim for refund by 14.11.2016, whereas the appellant filed said claim on 15.11.2016, i.e. delayed by one day - The incidence of tax has been passed on to the buyer, i.e. Ministry of Defence - Therefore on account of the delayed filing of refund claim by appellant, the ultimate sufferer is going to be the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - The Notification as notified by Finance Act, 2016 was brought into force to restore the benefit of exemption and to refund the tax paid by appellant - Therefore, intention of legislature was not to deprive the bona fide appellant, who has discharged tax diligently - It would not be just to penalize the Ministry of Defence for want of due care on the part of appellant - Therefore, delay of 1 (one) day in filing the refund claim be condoned and the refund claim of the appellant be considered on merits - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT