Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 794 - CESTAT NEW DELHISEZ - rejection of refund claim - refund of CENVAT credit availed on rent-a-cab service - denial on the ground that the service provider M/s. Mahindra Logistics has mentioned the place as Mumbai in the invoice - time bar - Held that: - Since the refund application in terms of Notification No.40/2012-ST dated 26.02.2012 was filed by the appellant on 17th Jan., 2014, immediately upon obtaining the permission from the Development Commissioner, in my view, such delay should have been condoned by the service tax authorities. Clause (e) contained in the Notification dated 20.06.2012 clearly provides that the Assistant Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise shall permit the applicant to file the application even beyond the period of limitation. Since due to the genuine and practical difficulties, the appellant was not in a position to obtain the permission from the Development Commissioner, it has applied for extension of time period for filing the refund application before the service tax authorities. The action on the part of the appellant seems reasonable and justified for the purpose of condonation of delay, which has specifically been provided in the Notification. Thus, I am of the view that rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation will not hold good and the application should merit consideration for grant of refund. The certificate placed at page 204 in the appeal paper-book clearly shows that the transportation services were availed by the appellant for transportation of its employees from Indore to Pithampur and back. Thus, wrong mention of the name of place i.e. Bombay will not take away the benefit of refund, to which the appellant is statutorily entitled to. Appeal allowed - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
|