9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 21.9.2016. The refund claim of Rs. 3,58,934/- being the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Shri K. Sankaranarayanan appeared and argued the matter. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 sides. 5. A refund claim as per section 104 has to be filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 intimation from SIPCOT, the refund has to be granted. Following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
