TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d application well within the period of limitation, which was expiring on 14.11.2016. Such dispatch on 8.11.2016 is also proved by the fact that the appellant has soon thereafter receipt back of the mail with the remark refused to accept , has again filed the application by hand on 5.12.2011. In this view of the matter, it is held that the refund application has been filed within the limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act. Further in view of Section 102(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, the service tax deposited by the appellant has taken the changed character of revenue deposit, by operation of law as the Government of India extended exemption with retrospective effect vide notification no.9/2016-ST read with Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.2016. Further, Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 sub-section (1) provided notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66 B, no service tax can be levied or collected for the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending with 29th day of Feb., 2016 (both days inclusive) in respect of the taxable services provided to the Government, a local authority or a Government Authority, by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of (a) civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession; under a contract entered into; before the 1st day of March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o accept by the Department. Thereafter, the appellant filed the refund application in person and the same were filed on 5.12.2016. 4. Revenue after scrutinizing of the applications issued Deficiency Memo No.1034 dated 17.02.2017 requiring the appellant to file documents/information like Form-R, copy of the complete work contract agreement/orders entered with the various parties, copy of the invoices with respect to the work done or to be done, copy of the audited balance sheet and income tax return for financial year 2015-2016, party-wise reconciliation of services rendered and payment received, party-wise ledger account of receipts and service tax refund and also brief notes on business activities and clarification why the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot clearly visible whether it is 11 or II. Accordingly, the refund applications were rejected on the ground of limitation vide order-in-original dated 25.01.2018. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the order-in-original. 10. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 11. It is evident that during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue had entertained correspondence with the Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi requesting for detailed tracking report for these two packages. However, in reply, Postal Department informed by its letter dated 29.05.2019 that the record is no longer available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d except by the Authority or law . 15. It is evident on the basis of the record that Revenue had refused to accept the speed post, which was dispatched on 8.11.2016, due to shifting of the Range Office of the service tax from CGO Complex, New Delhi-III to Ambedkar Bhawan, Rohini-Delhi. Reliance is also placed on the following rulings:- (1) Kujjal Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) GSTL 374 (T-Delhi) (2) Siemens Engineering Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. - 1976 AIR 1785, 1976 SCR 489 (3) M/s. Agni Steels Pvt. Ltd. -2021 TIOL 251 CESTAT-Mad. 16. Reliance is also placed on the Ruling of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax 2018 (7) TMI 276 , wherein unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act. I further hold that in view of Section 102(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, the service tax deposited by the appellant has taken the changed character of revenue deposit, by operation of law as the Government of India extended exemption with retrospective effect vide notification no.9/2016-ST read with Section 102 introduced by Finance Act, 2016. Thus, the rejection of refund by Revenue is also hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. I further hold that no limitation is applicable for refund in the facts and circumstances of the present case, due to the amount lying with the Revenue having the nature of revenue deposit. 20. In view of my findings and discussion, I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
