Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 916 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - export of services - merchant exporter of Mobile Phone - CHA services - Held that: - The para 3 of the notification clearly lays down that the refund shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the goods and explanation attached to the said condition clearly lays down that the date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of the Customs makes an order permitting clearance of the goods - As regards the condition prescribed in para 3(j) of the notification no. 52/2011, the same is to the effect that for the purpose of claiming refund the exporter is required to be registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textile. The said condition is a substantive condition for allowing refund claim and being a part of the notification cannot be ignored. Reliance placed on the decision of Golden Dew Tea Factory Vs. CCE Coimbatore [2006 (11) TMI 530 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] where it was held that while interpreting a notification number 41/99-CE that conditions of the notification are mandatory and not mere procedural and hence non fulfillment of the same is not condonable. There is no rule for any intendment while interpreting the notification and regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words used therein. I find that appellant have not admittedly fulfilled the condition 3(j) of the notification which is unambiguous and clear in language. Further, the appellant have not adhered to the time factor which is a part of notification itself and cannot be given a go by. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.
|