9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Per R. K. Singh Appeal is filed against order in appeal dated 27.8.2009 which upheld the order in original dated 28.1.2008 in terms of which rebate claim of Rs. 13,59,338/- was rejected. 2. The appellant had filed rebate claim in terms of Notification No. 11/2005- ST dated 19.5.2005 issued under Rule 5 of Export Service Rules 2005. The period covered for the rebate was August 2005 to January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab and Haryana). 4. Ld. DR contended that even in the absence of time-limit in the concerned notification time-limit of one year applicable to refunds/rebates as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 will be applicable and therefore the rebate was rightly rejected as time-barred. 5. We have considered the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - CE dated 6.9.2004 cannot be rejected on the ground of time-bar as the said notification did not contain any time-limit for claiming rebate. We find that Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is essentially pari materia Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules and Notification No. 19/2004 -CE dated 6.9.2004 also did not contain any time-limit as was the case in respect of Notification No. 11/2005 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
