Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Versus CCE, Meerut-I

2018 (2) TMI 830 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsideration of refund of service tax - the refund claims filed in respect of quarter ending October to Dec. 2007 and Jan. to March 2008 are barred by limitation of time and thus, there is no infirmity in impugned order, in rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. - 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 fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-10-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Udit Jain, Advocate - for the appellant Shri N. Garg, A.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, whereby, refund applications filed by the appellant were rejected on the ground that the same were filed beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access 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

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

limit provided in the notification has to be strictly adhered to for consideration of the refund application. Thus, she submits that since the refund application was not filed within the stipulated time as prescribed under the Notification dated 6.10.2007, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time. Accordingly, rejection of the refund applications by the authorities below is in conformity with the terms and conditions provided in the said notification. To support such stand, the ld. DR ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hus, it is evident that the refund claims were filed beyond the stipulated time frame, provided in the Notification dated 6.10.2007. With regard to consideration of the time limit of one year for filing of the refund application as provided under Section 11B ibid, we are of the view that the time limit prescribed therein is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, the Notification dated 6.10.2007 grants exemption from payment of service tax and such exem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access 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

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n notification can be said to be a mere matter of procedure, on which some amount of laxity can be given. It was held that the conditions mentioned in the notification cannot be considered as mere procedural requirements which can be relaxed. Further, in Midex Global Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 125 (Tri.-Del.), it was held that the exemption available will be only on fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein. The Tribunal held that Notification No.41/2007 is available .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.R. International (Unit-II) v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 649 (Tri.-Del.). 10. Considering the above discussion and decided cases and on careful examination of the provisions of Notification 41/2007, we find that the condition of time limit specified in the said notification to claim the exemption by way of filing a claim has to be adhered to by the respondent. There is no provision to extend the said time limit. There is no reason to bring in the provisions of Section 11B in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version