Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1385 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit on various input services - refund on the ground of time limitation - denial also on the ground that these services were not approved by the Development Commissioner - whether the refund application filed by the appellant in October, 2014 for the period ending October, 2013 should be treated as time barred in terms of the notification? - Held that:- The refund application was filed for the period ending October, 2013 and in view of the General Clauses Act, this month cannot be reckoned while calculating the period of one year. It has to begin from November, 2013 and ends in October, 2014. Therefore, the refund application has been filed within time limit and rejection of refund to the extent of ₹ 6,55,298/- on this account is incorrect and needs to be set aside. Even otherwise, the notification itself provides for extension of this time by the Asst. Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner. Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 8,80,140/- on account of services for which they had not permission of the Unit Approval Committee of the Development Commissioner? - Held that:- This approval being an essential requirement of the Exemption N/N. 12/2013-ST needs to be fully complied with if the appellant seeks to claim refund under the notification. There is nothing on record to show that the approval which is said to have not been obtained by the lower authority which fact has been reconfirmed by the first appellate authority has actually been obtained. Therefore, the refund on this account needs to be disallowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of ₹ 8,80,140/- denied to the appellant on the account of limitation in filing the refund claim is set aside - Appeal disposed off.
|