9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009-ST dated 3.3.2009 as amended vide Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 20.5.2009, which provides a scheme of exemption by way of refund for the taxable services specified in clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The refund documents were returned back to the Appellants on 7.1.2010 due to non submission of Bank statement or the documentary evidence of service tax payment. The said claim was resubmitted on 28.1.2010. After scrutinising the refund claim filed by the Appellant was issued a SCN dated 2.3.2010 for rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the claim was not filed in prescribed form, some invoices were time barred and the claim was not supported by Bank statement or the documentary evidence of service tax pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. [2012 (28) STR 463 (Tri.Ahmd.)] 5. The Ld. AR would submit that the judgment of this Bench has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to consider the matter afresh and this judgment was not produced before the Adjudicating Authority. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The only issue before me is rejection of refund claim files by the appellant on the ground that the said refund claim was not filed within a period of six months of the payment to service provider as stipulated under clause 2(f) of Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009. In order to appreciate actual reason for rejection of refund claim, it is imperative that the said clause 2(f) needs to be considered, which is as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant have admittedly produced invoices and have got proof of payment, it is appropriate that the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the amounts claimed, proof of payment and sanction of refund. It is made clear that the delay in filing the refund claim is condoned. 8. Yet, another reason for rejection of refund claim is that the appellant has not produced documentary evidence of invoices. The ld. Counsel submits that they are ready to produce all the documents as required. 9. I find that the refund claim which has been filed by the appellant, though belatedly, needs to be condoned as is held in the case of WOCO Motherson Advanced Rubber Tech. Ltd. (supra). The impugned order rejecting the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
