9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Tarun Kumar, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected as time barred as the appellant has filed refund claim for the period April 2006 to February 2008 on 12.01.2010. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant entered into agreement with M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sellers would be treated as export because benefit is acquiring outside India, in terms of promotion of business foreign company and on the said services, no service tax is payable. Therefore, on the basis of that clarification the appellant filed refund claim on 12.01.2010 and the said refund claim were rejected on the ground that the same is filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has filed refund claim beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. Therefore, the refund claim is rightly rejected. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submission. 6. Considering the fact that the issue is whether as time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable in a case where tax is not payable by the appellant or not? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be entitled to refund of entire amount with proportionate interest." In view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of National Institute of Public Finance & Policy (supra) we hold that as the appellant were not liable to pay service tax, therefore, the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing the refund claim is not applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
