9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative for the respondent. ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant has filed their refund claim for Rs. 3,94,529/- for service tax paid against the specified services in the course of export under the provisions of Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. 3. The appellant is registered with the Department and engaged in the export of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods for export (LEO). It has been observed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the time limit should have been strictly followed. The goods having been exported during October-December, 2015, the appellant was not required to wait till the December, 2016 to file the claim and agreeing with the adjudicating authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation 5. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for similar refund in Appendix to the notification at para 2, it is mentioned that the claim for such refund is submitted not more than once for any quarter in a calendar year. Admittedly, it is not disputed that the period of limitation is one year from the relevant date. Accordingly, she further urges that the refund claim filed on 27.12.2016 may be held in time within one year as the limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.5/2006-CE (NT) read with notification no.41/2007-ST and read with notification no.41/2012-ST, the limitation has to be counted from the first day and after the end of the quarter, and accordingly, I find that refund claim filed on 27.12.2016 is within limitation. 8. Accordingly, in view of my findings, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Further, I find that the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
