TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No.50225/2016 - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. RK Mishra, DR ORDER PER MR. S.K. MOHANTY : This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Noida, upholding rejection of refund claim by the adjudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable service, namely, Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The appellant connects the Indian clients/buyers to foreign suppliers for direct supply of goods to them and for providing the said service, the appellant receives commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. advocate, the refund claim for the interest amount has been filed within the stipulated time prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Ld. advocate further submitted that since the amount in question was deposited under the direction of the Department, the same should be refunded without insisting for a formal refund application and for refund of such amount, the time limit prescribed in central excise statute shall not be applicable. 4. On the other hand, Shri RK Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the interest amount was paid by the appellant on different dates between the period 18.12.2008 and 29.04.2009 and refund claim was filed on 15.09.2010, which is beyond one yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as interest amount. In the present case, since the appellant for the first time had filed the application, claiming refund of interest of ₹ 10,24,535/- vide its letter dated 15.09.2010, paid during the period 18.12.2008 to 29.04.2009, in my opinion, the same is barred by limitation of time, being filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date. Further there is no document available on record to prove that the interest amount was paid by the appellant under protest. 7. Therefore, the refund application filed under Section 11B ibid is not maintainable on the ground of time bar aspect. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the appeal filed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
