9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Ramesh Nair Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant were discharging the service tax liability under reverse charge basis on services of goods transport agency. During the period January' 2005 to June' 2006 due to confusion they paid service tax on whole amount of freight even though they were eligible for abatement of tax on 75% of the freight charges in terms of Notification No. 32/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification in question is optional. The Appellant cannot claim the notification with retrospective effect. The service tax was paid as per law and there is no excess payments. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Ld.Advocate appearing for the Appellant submit that the impugned order is illegal as it travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i A.B. Kulgod, ld. AC (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the Appellate authority. 4. We have gone through the facts of the case and judgments cited by both the sides. We find that the Appellant has claimed refund on 14.06.2007 only after the insistence of the department on 07.12.2006 to reverse the credit availed by the Appellant. The show cause notice was issued to them on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund become entertainable only on the day they were asked to reverse the said credit. In the present case vide letter dt. 07.12.2006 they were asked to reverse the credit and hence the claim was filed by Appellant on 14.06.2007 i.e within one year of the letter dt. 07.12.2006. The Appellant's claim is thus cannot be held to be time bar. Our views are based upon Tribunal's order in case of Raj Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
