TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the expiry of one year from the date of receipt of proceeds of export of service - Learned Commissioner (A) directed the appellant to furnish the documents as required under the statutory provisions, before the adjudicating authority, who shall process the claim and shall pass appropriate speaking order after following the principles of natural justice - I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (A) and therefore impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/COD/20006/2017, ST/20017/2017-SM, ST/21604/2016-SM, ST/20017/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20095-20096 / 2017 - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. S. Sivakumar Adv For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the refund claim being hit by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority and the appellate authority relied on the Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.6.2012 and expressed the view about limitation of time for claim of refund under Rule 5 of CCR and also relied on the decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering Ltd.: 2012 (281) ELT 185 while deciding similar issue of applicability of provisions of Section 11B of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The only issue to be decided in the present appeals is whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating authority, who shall process the claim and shall pass appropriate speaking order after following the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that in this case, there was an export of service and in the case of export of service, as per settled law, the refund under Rule 5 has to be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of receipt of proceeds of export of service. The learned Commissioner (A) relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in CCE vs. GTN Engineering Ltd. reported in 2012 (281) ELT 185. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in this case held that the relevant date for computing one year prescribed under Section 11B is to be determined by applying Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Further, I find that in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
