TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption to service tax on development chares was extended to the beneficiaries, has been in a slumber and has not taken any initiative to inform the beneficiary about the exemption. Had SIPCOT taken action within the time prescribed appellant would have filed the refund in time. Thus it established that delay was not due any reasons on the part of appellant. Hon'ble High Court in the case of JSW DHARMATAR PORT PVT. LTD., JSW JAIGARH PORT LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE [ 2018 (12) TMI 1118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar is unjustified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.40373 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.09.2017. Appellant as a service receiver has paid service tax to the intermediary / service provider / SIPCOT on 05.10.2016. Thereafter, the appellant was not informed by SIPCOT as to the exemption granted vide the above amendment. The amendment introduced vide Section 104 (1) did not clarify as to who has to apply for the refund claim. Since SIPCOT has collected the amount, appellant was under bonafide belief that SIPCOT would file refund claim and pass the amount to the appellant. Only on 13.06.2018 SIPCOT issued a letter to the appellant stating that they have not claimed refund of the amount. The appellant immediately filed refund claim on 27.06.2018 after obtaining the necessary documents from SIPCOT. He also explained that for such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 27.06.2018 is therefore beyond the limitation prescribed by law. The authorities below have correctly rejected the refund claim. She submits that the decisions relied upon by the counsel are not applicable to the facts of case. It is also stated by her that there is no bar to file refund claim by the appellant without getting certificate from SIPCOT is the service provider. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to refund claim that has been rejected as being time barred. The Ld. counsel for the appellant has explained the situation as to how the delay was caused in filing the refund claim. SIPCOT has intimated the appellant vide letter dt. 13.6.2018 informing the appellant that they have not cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
