TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the assent of the President of India. Such assent was received on 31.3.2017. Thus, the refund claim ought to have been filed on or before 30.9.2017. In the present case, the refund claim is filed on 9.10.2017. Needless to say that when the service tax has been collected by SIPCOT, the appellant would require necessary documents from SIPCOT to file the refund claim - there was a confusion as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri K. Sankaranarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vikas Jhajharia, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants filed refund claim of service tax paid on development charges to SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai. As per section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax on development charges is exempted for the period 1.6.2007 to 21.9.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such denovo proceedings of refund claim, the original authority was of the view that the refund claim is filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 104 and therefore the appellant is not eligible for refund. The appellant once again filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund claim. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the refund claim when there was no fault on the part of the appellant to request for refund. 3. The ld. AR Shri Vikas Jhajharia appeared for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order and stressed on the discussion made by Commissioner (Appeals) in para 9 of the impugned order. It is contended by him that refund claim has been rightly rejected. 4. Heard both s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim. In the decision cited by the ld. Counsel for appellant, the Tribunal has considered the issue and held that the time limit of one year prescribed in section 11B of Central Excise Act would apply. In the case of Teknomec Vs. CGST CE, Chennai 2020 (35) GSTL 135 (Tri. Chennai), this Tribunal held that when claim has been filed within reasonable time from the date when appellant received in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
