TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit and interest thereon. The relevant date should be from the date when audit has raised an objection and compliance thereof. The appellant admittedly filed the refund claim well within one year of that date i.e. on 22.02.2015. Therefore, the refund is not time bar, as the same was filed within one year from the relevant date as per facts of the present case - rejection of refund on time bar not sustainable. Appeal allowed. - Appeal No. ST/10732/2018-SM - Final Order No. A / 11249 /2018 - Dated:- 14-6-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : Shri Deepali Kamble Mayur Desai ( Advocate ) For the Respondent : Shri G. Jha ( A. R. ) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant is engage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the refund was not time bar for the reason that on the bonafide belief they have paid Service Tax on 100% of the gross value of Man Power Service Provided to their client M/s Devang Paper Mill Pvt Ltd. The refund has arisen only from the audit objection raised against the service recipient by the audit party and the reversal of Cenvat Credit made by the recipient, therefore, the relevant date in the fact of the present case should be taken from the date of audit objection and compliance, thereafter. The refund was filed within 1 year from that date, therefore, it is within time limit. 3. Shri G. Jha Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Notification No. 30/12-ST, they were supposed to pay on 25% of the gross value. Since, appellants paid the Service Tax on 100% and the same was availed by the recipient as the Cenvat credit, there was no occasion for filling any refund claim, refund has arisen only as per the audit objection and compliance thereof by making the payment towards Cenvat credit and interest thereon. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case, In my considered view, the relevant date should be from the date when audit has raised an objection and compliance thereof. The appellant admittedly filed the refund claim well within one year of that date i.e. on 22.02.2015. Therefore, the refund is not time bar, as the same was filed within one year fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
