9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f present dispute. In this case, the appellant had filed the refund application, claiming refund of service tax paid on the above mentioned taxable services provided by it. The said application was filed online in the ACES (Automation of Central Excise and Service Tax) computer system of the service tax department on 19/08/2012. Subsequently, the appellant had submitted a letter dated 01/11/2012 to the service tax department, enclosing therewith the self certified copy of the refund application. By letter dated 02/11/2012, the refund application was returned to the appellant for submission of certain documents, which were essential for deciding the refund claim. The refund application along with the relevant documents was submitted by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected by the department and the same was returned to the appellant for re-submission after enclosing the relevant data/particulars. As per the statutory provisions, the date of re-submission of refund application should not be considered as the relevant date for computation of the limitation period. In this context, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Arya Exports & Industries -2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del) have held that if refund claim has not been filed in the proper form or without necessary documents, department can direct the appellant to file the same in the proper form along with supporting documents. It has further been held that date of filing claim is date of which claim was filed initially in the form not prescribed or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence that the appellant had provided any service for repair and maintenance of the flats belonging to the flat owners. Thus, in the absence of any provision of service, mere acceptance of deposit by the appellant will not subjected to levy of service tax under the taxable category of repair or maintenance service. Thus, the service tax simultaneously paid by the appellant should be eligible for refund. 6. As regards the claim for refund on the ground of double payment of service tax by the appellant on MSEB deposit, we find that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (appeals), and accordingly, the refund claims were denied. Since the onus entirely lies wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
