2022 (11) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the month of March, 2017 but subsequently in the month of May 2017 on mutual understanding with the Insurance Company the amount stands reduced, therefore, the appellant have issued the credit notes to the Insurance Company. Thus, there is a excess payment of Service Tax made in the month on 3rd June, 2017. Thus there was a excess payment of Rs. 92321/- for which the appellant sought refund. As regard Rs. 11,804/- excess payment of service tax was made it is due to the reason that as compared to the total income for the month of May, 2017 oversightly, the excess amount of taxable value was mentioned in ST-3 return, accordingly the excess payment of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 11,804/- was made. For this amount also the appellant fil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. As regard, the refund amount of Rs. 11,804/-. He submits that the taxable value in ST-3 was oversightly written on as compared to the actual income which is recorded in the books of accounts. He submits that the appellant have submitted the income statement, ledger of service recipient, C.A Certificate and affidavit of the director of the appellant's Company. He submits that all these documents are sufficient to establish the correct amount of taxable value, therefore, the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the documents were not produced is not correct. 3. Shri. Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. I have care .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate provided under Section 11B in the facts of the present case the Clause (f) is applicable according to which the date of payment is the relevant date, therefore, the date of payment being 03.06.2017 and refund filing dated 01.06.2018, the appellant's refund claim is well within 1 year from the date of excess payment of Service Tax. Accordingly, in my considered view the refund is not time barred. As regard the refund amount of Rs. 11,804/- the Learned Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant have not submitted the documents. Learned counsel has taken me to the documents such as ST-3 returns, income statement of the relevant period, ledgers of the service recipient in their books of account, C.A Certificate and aff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X