9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time-barred. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a telecom service provider with the service tax for providing telephone/mobile services. The appellant had inadvertently paid an amount of Rs. 1,45,85,319/- towards service tax under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" on the services provided to a foreign mobile service provider who enabled the subscriber of the said foreign service provider to avail International in-bound roaming facility. The appellant had filed a refund claim for the said amount of Rs. 1,45,85,319/-. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant as to why their refund claim should not be rejected under (a) Circular No.90/1/2007-ST dt. 03/01/2007 as their services were delivered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same as time barred. Hence the present appeal. 3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the appeal as time-barred is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and law. He further submitted that the appeal was filed within time but the only mistake committed by the appellant was that they filed the copy of the appeal in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. He also submitted that during the year 2007, the Tapal Section (filing section) was common to the office of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Tri. Bang.)] v. Horticulture Development Foundation Vs. CST, Kolkata [2014-TIOL-1818-CESTAT-KOL] vi. Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. CC [2009(244) ELT 66 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 3.2. He also submitted that the appeal filed on 19/12/2007 before the Service Tax commissionerate should be treated as having been filed within time and therefore the same is not time-barred and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the appeal has been filed on 11/03/2011 by delay of more than 3 years from the date of issue of order and therefore it is beyond the condonable period as provided in Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. He also submitted that there was negligence on the part of the appellant in submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
