9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs.86,311.00 on 17.04.2009 against payment made on 24.04.2008 towards their liability for the period from May, 2006 to May, 2007 and from August, 2007 to March, 2008. The refund was sought on the ground that even though, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. None present for the Respondent, despite notice. Heard ld. AR for the Revenue. 4. The ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the refund claim filed by the Respondent was within time in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise, 1944, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994, stipulates that all refund claims need to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date. The relevant date has been defined under the said Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein, inter alia, it is prescribed that the period of one year be reckoned from the date of payment of duty. In the present case, the service tax was paid on 24.04.2008 and the refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding on the said fact, that is, services were received from individual truck owners and not from GTA Service Provider against consignment notes being not recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, and the said plea had been accepted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without any evidence on record, I agree with the submission of the ld. AR that the fact whether the Respondent had availed the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
