Tax Management India.Com

Home Page

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (2) TMI 830

Refund claim - rejected on the ground that the same were filed beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days provided under the N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - Held that: - Since the present refund application is in relation to availment of the exemption, and is no way, connected with the erroneous payment of service tax, the time limit provided under Section 11B of the Act is not applicable and the time frame prescribed in the Notification dated 6.10.2007 is strictly applicable for consideratio .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the relevant date. However, since this limitation aspect has not been dealt with by the authorities below, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for proper verification of the refund applications to ascertain, whether such applications were filed within the prescribed time limit prescribed under Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008. - Appeal rejected in part and part matter on remand. - ST/120-122/2010-DB - A/58406-58408/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7 cannot prescribe a different period for filing and entertaining refund application. Thus, he submits that since the refund application was filed within the stipulated time frame of one year from the relevant date, the same is not barred by limitation of time and the appellant should be entitled for refund of service tax paid by it. The ld. Advocate further submits that the appellant is entitled for refund of service tax paid during the quarter April 2008 to June 2008, inasmuch as, the refund c .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore Vs. K.S. Oils Ltd. - 2017 (52) STR 261 (Tri.-Del.). 4. Heard both the sides and examined the case records. 5. It is an admitted fact on record that the refund claim in respect of the period October, 2007 to Dec. 2007, Jan. to March 2008, and April 2008 to June 2008 were filed by the appellant on 27th June 2008. As per the provisions of Notification dated 6.10.2007, the same were required to be filed on 29.2.2008 and 30.5.2008. T .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Oils (supra) has held that the time limit provided under Notification No.41/2007 dated 6.10.2007 is strictly applicable for consideration of refund of service tax. The relevant paragraphs in the said decision is extracted herein below. 8. We have also referred to the cases relied upon by the Revenue to state that the time limit mentioned in the notification cannot be ignored by the sanctioning authority. In Principal Commissioner of S.T. v. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (45) .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

only on fulfilment of condition including filing of claim within time limit prescribed therein. The Tribunal noted that this is an exemption notification and not a refund within the scope of Section 11B. Similar ratio was adopted in Spark Engineering P. Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 71 (Tri.-Del.), in Calcutta Export Company v. CCE, Kolkata-II reported in 2016 (44) S.T.R. 672 (Tri. Kolkata), Sakay Overseas v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 456 (Tri.-Del.) and H .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he refund claims filed by the appellant. 7. However, with regard to the refund claim filed for the quarter ending April 2008 to June 2008, in terms of the notification dated 18.11.2008, the same is not barred by limitation of time, having been filed within six months from the relevant date. However, since this limitation aspect has not been dealt with by the authorities below, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for proper verification of the refund applic .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →