TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period of limitation. However, in the instant case Appellant had not purchased any goods but availed services and it had borne the incidence of tax. Hence for the purpose of determination of limitation the relevant date for the Appellant would fall within the definition of sub-clause (f) of Section 11(5)(B) of the Central Excise Act, for which the date of payment is material. Appellant is entitled to get refund against all those tax paid erroneously, whose challans were showing the date of payment within one year from the date of filing of refund application on dated 27.06.2017. However, having regard to the fact that some errors concerning payment detail is noticeable from the Order-in-Original, refund amount is required to be recalcu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 2016 as per proposal made in the Union Budget, 2016 and complete exemption was granted w.e.f. 01.03.2016, Appellant, as service recipient who discharged the burden of tax liability, sought for refund through its application dated 27.06.2017 but the said refund claim was rejected by Order-in- Original dated 13.02.2018 on the ground that only M/s. Paresh, who deposited the tax, can file the refund application and the refund up to 29.02.2016 was hit by the limitation of six months prescribed in the amended Finance Act, 2016. Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 05.09.2018 confirmed rejection of refund that was time barred in terms of Section 103 of the Finance Act for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid under mistake of law, in view of plethora of decision of rendered by this Tribunal including those reported in [2018 (9) GSTL 8 (Bom.)] in the case of Parijat Construction, [2012 (26) STR 195 (Kar.)] in the case of KVR Construction, [2019 (20) GSTL 330 (Del.)] in the case of National Institute of Public Finance Policy and [2020 (1) TMI 324] in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., besides the fact that refund claim of Rs.5,88,021/- was made on the basis of invoice dated 06.07.2016 which was well within the period of one year from the date of claim application filed on 27.06.2017. Further, he argued that relevant date as provided under Section 11B(5)(B) of the Central Excise Act is supposed to be date of payment of duty as menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he table annexed to the Order-in-Original dated 08.02.2019 and pointed out that going by the table invoice at Sr. No. 1, the date of payment of challan is clearly outside the period of limitation and being referred in Sr. No. 2 contents a date which is different from the date mentioned in the invoice and there is mismatch of amount, for which refund claim of Rs.5,88,021/- was rightly rejected and that needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. I have perused the case record and the relevant provision contained in Rule 11B of Central Excise Act. A bare reading of sub-clause (e) would clearly reveal that in case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods would be the relevant date to determine the period of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
