Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 590 - CESTAT BANGALORESEZ - Refund of service tax - N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 - rejection on the ground that was rejected only on the ground that the address of the service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice - Held that:- The appellant has produced before me invoices subsequently issued by the service provider wherein the address of the service recipient is mentioned. Moreover, as per the proviso to Rule 4A itself provides that in the case of ‘financial institutions’, the address of the service recipient is not required but this proviso was not considered by both the authorities. Therefore, in view of the specific provision in Rule 4A of STR, 1994, the rejection of refund on the ground of not mentioning the address of the service recipient is not sustainable in law. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar - Held that:- No doubt, the Notification gives the discretionary power to the Original Authority to condone the delay provided there is justification for the delay. The Original Authority have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation but declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient reason was given in the application seeking condonation except saying that due to unavoidable reason, the delay occurred. Since, there was no proper justification for the delay, therefore rejection of the refund of ₹ 97,831/- is perfectly justified. Appeal allowed in part.
|