9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of 5 refund claims on various grounds. Thereafter an adjudication order was passed rejecting the refund claims on following grounds:- (a) Refund claims are filed beyond the period of limitation (b) In some invoices do not contain requisite details as prescribed in rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. (c) No evidence of payment made against the invoices on which refund is sought. 3. That order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the refund filed for the period June, 2007 and September, 2007 are barred by limitation and for rest of refund claims, on merits, he held that the appellant is entitled for refund claim but he directed the adjudicating authority to verify certain documents. The said order was accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was neither alleged specifically in the show cause notice nor there was specific finding in the adjudication order as well as in the appellate order. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.-2010 (260 ELT 271 (Tri.-Del) On merits, he submits that refund claims have been denied in the second round of litigation on the premise that at the time of export of goods, the services availed by the appellant were not specified services as per Notification No.41/2007-ST. For this purpose, he submits that refund claims cannot be denied merely on the ground that the export related to prior to notification/amended in the notification. To support this contention he relied on the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.9.2011 has attained finality or not. (ii) Whether the adjudicating authority is having the right to re-examine the refund claim on new ground after the Order-in-Appeal dated 2.9.2011 or not. (iii) Whether the appellant is entitled for refund claim of the services availed prior to amendment in the notified services in the Notification No.41/2007-ST or not. 8. In this case, the main contention of the ld.AR is that the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has open order for re-examination by the adjudication authority with certain directions to verify certain documents. Therefore, the adjudicating authority is having every right to examine the refund claim afresh. This argument is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant are not entitled to refund claim as held by the Hon ble Bombay Court in the case of WNS Global Service Pvt.Ltd. (supra).Relying on the judgement of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case Addi Industries Ltd., the contention of the ld.AR that the conditions of the notification are required to be fulfilled by the appellant, I find that in the case of Addi Industries Ltd.(supra), the condition of the notification was that refund claim is to be filed within the prescribed time but there is no condition in the notification that if the services availed prior to insertion of services as notified services in the notification No.41/2007, refund is not admissible. Therefore reliance on the case of Addi Industries (supra) is not acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
