TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial of refund on the ground of non-production of requisite documents - period commencing from the 1st June, 2007 and ending with the 21st September, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and the appellants have a strong case in their favour on merits as well as procedure. This Bench has gone into both the issues in the case of COMFORT NIGHT LINEN PRODUCTS AND PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION AND ENGINEERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT [ 2021 (8) TMI 169 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] and held that the refund is due to the appellants. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants and the impugned orders are not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding with the 21st September, 2016 and sub-section (2) of Section 104 provided for refund of service tax paid during this period. Learned consultant also submits that the issue is squarely covered in the appellants favour as per the orders passed by this Bench in the cases of Metrolite Roofing Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. CCT CE, Calicut [Final Order No.20160-20166/2022 dt. 01/04/2022] and Comfort Night Linen Products and anr. Vs. CCT CE, Calicut [Final Order No.20652-20653/2021 dt. 03/08/2021]. Learned consultant further submits that the appellate authority has rejected their appeals and denied refund on the ground that required documents in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable by Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Act, as is leviable on the onetime upfront amount payable for such lease. Vide Section 104 (1), exemption was provided from said services for the period from 01.06.2007 to 21.09.2016 and it was provided that the refund claim ST/20413-20414/2020 5 should be filed within a period of six months from the date from which Finance Act, 2017 is promulgated and come into force. Further, I find that in the present case, the appellants filed the refund claims within time and the only ground for which the refunds were rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the appellants did not produce sufficient documents in the form of invoices/bills showing that they have paid the service tax to KINFRA. During the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
