Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 723 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHRefund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - time limitation - refund claim was filed on 07.06.2017 for the quarter 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016 wherein the last payment was received on 02.06.2016 - refund rejected on the ground of time bar - Section 11BB of CEA - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that one refund claim is required to be filed for each quarter. Admittedly, in a case, where one refund claim is required to file in each quarter, therefore, the period of limitation is to counted one year from the last date of the said quarter is the date for filing the refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As, there is an ambiguity in the notification that what should be the relevant date. In the notification on the one hand, it has been stated that one refund claim is to be filed quarterly and on the other hand, it is saying that within one year from the date of receiving of the foreign convertible exchange, when a Notification is having ambiguity that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the assessee. Admittedly, it is an admitted position that there is an ambiguity in the notification, therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and the same views was taken in the various pronouncements of the Tribunal as in the cases of M/S. GRAN OVERSEAS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. DELHI [2017 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and POONA BRUSH COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE - III [2018 (2) TMI 530 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. The refund claims filed by the appellants are within one year from the last date of the quarter in each - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|