TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for filing the export claim under the N/N. 17/2009-ST (1 year) was applicable to the refund claim for the earlier period also - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1846-1849/2010 - A/30726-30729/2017 - Dated:- 6-6-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Sh. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. P.S Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: M. V. Ravindran] 1. All these four appeals raise a common question of law hence they are being disposed of a common order as they are in respect of the very same assessee/appellant. 2. These appeals are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No.31 to 34/2010 (T) S. Tax dated 07.05.2010. 3. Heard the both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irements of furnishing of documentary evidence which is a pre-requisite for sanction of refund, however, the First Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of limitation. 5. Ld. Counsel draws my attention to the facts of the case and submits that appeal No.ST/1846/2010 is for the denial/rejection of refund claim for the quarter ended August, 2007 to June 2008 and the refund claim was filed on 30.12.2008 which is according to him was wrongly stating that the refund claim has been filed belatedly. It is also his submission that other three refund claims were rejected only on the ground that there were filed beyond the period of 6 months as mandate. He submits that the Government of India vide Notification No.17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of Division Bench of Allahabad in the case of Pacific Leather Finishers (supra) wherein, in paragraph No. 6 the reasoning is mentioned and is reproduced: 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue of time bar in this appeal is no longer res integra, and is decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd., [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del.)] , Wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the limitation cannot start to run unless right to receive a claim or refund crystallized. In the present case, the right to claim/refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. crystallized only when the service tax was deposited in October, 2008. Thus, the refund claim was filed within six month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
