9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant : Shri H Modh, Shri Amit Laddha, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri S Chitkara, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Shri M V Ravindran, All these appeals are filed against a common issue, hence are being disposed by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue regarding rejection of refund claims filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 6 months for filing refund claim from the date or from the date of payment of Service Tax to the service provider. The said Notification has been superseded by Notification No 17/2011-ST dt 1.3.2011 wherein the time for filing the refund claims of the Service Tax paid has been extended to one year. 5. The Ld. Counsel submits that in all these cases the Adjudicating Authority has passed an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication 9/2009-ST. Ld. counsel was correct in stating Tribunal in the case of K P Identification (supra) considered the issue. I reproduce the ratio of the Tribunal. "Considered the arguments of both sides. I do not agree with the argument that the time-limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims are within time limit and the matter has to be remitted back to he Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh for concluding the issue on the merit of the claim. 8. On a specific query from the Bench as to why Revenue is also in appeal against the said order, the Ld DR submits that Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Authority on the ground that he has remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
