TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The claim was also not accompanied with any documents showing payment of service tax and other documents required to be enclosed alongwith with the refund claim as per the condition laid down under the said notification. As per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, the refund claim was required to be accompanied with the documents “evidencing export of goods, payment of Service Tax on the specified services for which claim for refund of Service Tax paid is filed and copy of written agreement entered into by the exporter with the buyer of said goods.” In these circumstances it can not be held that the appellants had filed a “refund claim” (even a defective one) on 28.2.2008 and that what they did on 16.6.2008 was to re-file it af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be time-barred and rejected. In there appeal, the appellants have contended that they had actually filed their claim on 28.2.2008 which was well within the time limit prescribed under the said notification. They contended that the claim filed on 16.6.2008 was actually a re-submission made after rectification of deficiencies in response to the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.5.2008 and therefore the date of filing the claim is to be reckoned to be 28.2.2008 which makes their claim as having been filed within the prescribed time limit. They cited several judgments to the effect that when the original refund claim was filed within time and proper claim in prescribed format was filed after direction from the department beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, payment of Service Tax on the specified services for which claim for refund of Service Tax paid is filed and copy of written agreement entered into by the exporter with the buyer of said goods. It is thus evident that what was filed on 28.2.2008 can by no stretch of imagination be called a refund claim (defective or otherwise). In these circumstances it can not be held that the appellants had filed a refund claim (even a defective one) on 28.2.2008 and that what they did on 16.6.2008 was to re-file it after removal of defects. Thus it has to be held that the appellants filed the refund claim for the first time only on 16.6.2008 which is clearly beyond the prescribed time limit. 4. In the light of the analysis above, we find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
