TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The impugned order and the rejection cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40538 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40966 / 2019 - Dated:- 25-7-2019 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant claiming to be a 100% EOU rendering pre-publication services and related services for books and journals and having availed input credit of various input services and also based on export of services, filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ( CCR for short). 1.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2017 held that no unjust enrichment or time-bar issue was involved and accordingly, sanctioned the refund; that the Revenue preferred an appeal against the refund before the Commissioner (Appeals); that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2019 (CTA-I) dated 21.01.2019 allowed the Revenue s appeal by setting aside the sanction order on the ground that the application for refund clam was not made within one year in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, etc. 3.2 Ld. Consultant drew support from the following decisions : (i) 3E Infotech Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 410 (Mad.); (ii) Union of India Vs. ITC Ltd. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the claim of the Assessee for a sum of ₹ 4,39,683/- cannot be barred by limitation, and ought to be refunded. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR relied on the findings in the impugned order. He also relied on the following orders of the Tribunal : (i) Mysore Leasing Finance Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. S.T. Mysore 2009 (14) S.T.R. 54 (Tri. Bang.); (ii) Casa Grande Co-operative Housing Vs. C.G.S.T., Mumbai South 2019-TIOL-178-CESTAT-MUM; 5. I have heard the rival contentions, have gone through the orders placed on record and have also gone through the various decisions/orders referred to during the course of arguments. 6.1 Albeit assessee pursued the alternate remedy, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund by the Assessee insofar as it related to ₹ 4,39,683/- was barred by limitation, as the application for refund was made after one year from the relevant date. 6.3 After applying various decisions on the subject, the Hon ble High Court has summarized as under : 12 . Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 13. On an analysis of the precedents cited above, we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
