TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled beyond the period of one year - HELD THAT:- The amount of service tax paid and covered under the period of one year from the relevant date as laid down under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible as the Appellant had reversed the credit availed on the amount of service tax paid - refund rejected for the period under limitation. Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE, SALEM [ 2013 (11) TMI 1688 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where on similar issue, the Appellants were already allowed refund of the service tax paid for their unit situated at Nadiad - refund allowed. Appeal allowed in part. - Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them on 29.03.2016 proposing denial of refund on various grounds including the ground that the CENVAT Credit availed on the service tax paid on reverse charge mechanism basis on the said service had not been reversed by them. Consequently, in compliance with the said notice, the Appellant reversed the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 7,40,851/- on 12.05.2015. However, on adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, the learned Advocate Shri P.S. Namboodiri for the Appellant submits that pursuant to the amendment to the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to refund of the service of ₹ 7,40,851/- paid on reverse charge basis during the relevant period on the value of commission paid to the overseas commission agents. It is not in dispute that the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 has been amended w.e.f. 1.10.2014, whereunder, no service tax is to be paid on the commission paid to the overseas commission agents. Consequently, the Appellants became eligible to claim refund of service tax paid during the period October 2014 to September 2015. The refund claim was filed 01.10.2015. The objection of the learned A.R. for the Revenue is that a portion of demand is barred by limitation, being filed beyond the period of one year. The learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
