EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed by the appellants is for out -of -turn disposaltheir appeal. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal itself, having regard to the fact that the issue arising in this case is already covered by a decision rendered by this Bench in the appellants' own case. Accordingly, after allowing the application, I proceed to deal with the appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal is against a demand of service tax on Goods Transport Operators' (GTO) service received by the appellants during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. The amount of tax was paid on 14.11.03, within the time limit prescribed under Rule 71A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Such payment was made upon self -assessment done in the relevant tax returns (in Form No. ST -3B) filed on the said date. "UNDER PROTEST" was endorsed on these returns. In addition to this, the appellants submitted a letter to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise on 11.11.03, wherein all their legal contentions were raised along with protest. The assessee filed a refund claim on the ground that, in view of the apex court's judgment in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC), they were entitled to refund of the service tax paid by them under protest. The department issued two show -cause notices, one for rejecting the refund claim and the other for appropriating the above payment towards demand of tax. Both these proposals were upheld by the original authority in a common order, which was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.

(3.) I find that the basic issue is whether the appellants are entitled to refund of the service tax paid by them in respect of GTO service received during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. This issue is already covered against them by the decision of this Bench in Commissioner v. E.I.D Parry India Ltd. 2006 (4) STR 585 (Tri. -Chennai). That order is reproduced below: