TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Service Tax, Salem [ 2016 (7) TMI 1078 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , under almost similar facts, has held that The imposition of period of limitation, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore, cannot prevail. The above view clearly supports the case of the assessee rather than supporting the view of the revenue - denial of refund on the ground of time-limit is not in order and therefore, the impugned order is set aside - decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40096 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41627 / 2021 - Dated:- 1-7-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereby rejected the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 27,57,930/- pertaining to the intervening period from 01.04.2016 to 22.08.2016, as time-barred, etc. 2.2 He contended that the impugned review order being not in accordance with law, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 2.3 He also filed written submissions and relied on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Petronet Lng Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Delhi-I [2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 54 (Tri. Del.)]; (ii) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex., Haldia [2008 (229) E.L.T. 599 (Tri. Kol.)]; (iii) M/s. Facit Asia Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2003 (161) E.L.T. 1003 (Tri. Chennai)]; (iv) M/s. Raymond Ltd. v. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions/orders relied on by the parties. 6. Facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the denial of refund by the First Appellate Authority pertains to the period from 01.04.2016 to 22.08.2016 and it is the case of the Revenue that the refund claim for this period was clearly made after a lapse of ONE year and hence hit by limitation in terms of paragraph 3(g) of the Notification ibid. 7.1 This Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Ashok Granites Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Salem reported in 2016 (46) S.T.R. 875 (Tri. Chennai), under almost similar facts, has held as under: 4. It is seen that in the definition of relevant date u/s. 11B, there is a mention that if the goods are exported by sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eavy Electricals Ltd., has laid down the principle that 12. The Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. has been issued in terms of Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification provides for grant of rebate by way of refund of the service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. It is nobody s case that the GTA services for which the appellant has claimed rebate of service tax under the notification has not been used for export of goods. Consequently, there is no doubt that the appellant falls within the gamut of the notification whose stated purpose is to grant refund of service tax on services used for export. In terms of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited above, once it is determined by strict means ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
