TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Notification 11/2005 -ST makes it clear that the rebate scheme under the said rules is a self-contained scheme and it nowhere invites the condition of one year for filing the application for rebate. - rejection of the appellants rebate claim on the ground of time-bar is not sustainable - refund allowed. - Appeal No. ST/870/2009-CU (DB) - Final Order No. 53910/2015 - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant has contended that the rebate was claimed under Rule 5 of Export Service Rules read with Notification No. 11/2005 - ST and in that notification there was no limitation period prescribed for filing rebate claim and therefore its claim cannot be rejected as time-barred. It cited the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of C. Excise, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned Notification No. 11/2005 - ST there was no time-limit prescribed during the relevant period. A combined reading of Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Notification 11/2005 -ST makes it clear that the rebate scheme under the said rules is a self-contained scheme and it nowhere invites the condition of one year for filing the application for rebate. Madras High Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... style Ltd. (supra) and also by Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi). 6. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we find that the rejection of the appellants rebate claim on the ground of time-bar is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
