9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally on 21/11/2016. As the first refund claim sent by Speed Post would have been received by the Department before 14/11/2016, the criteria of filing the refund claim within 6 months from the date of the communication as per Section 102 of Finance Bill, 2016 has been correctly followed. Therefore, he prays that the present Appeal may be allowed. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative submits that the Appeal before the Tribunal in the present case does not emanate from the OIO passed on 31/1/2017 but emanates from another OIO dated 06/12/2017. The Learned Authorized Representative submits that in respect of the Refund Claim filed on 21/11/2016 for Rs.15,85,089/- , the same was rejected vide OIO No.1/ST/REFUND/AGT/ACA/2017 dated 31/1/2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as per Section 102(3) of the Finance Bill,2016. These facts were not mentioned in the Second Refund Claim filed on 25/04/2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim and dismissed their Appeal as the Refund Claim was filed on 24/07/2017 for the Service Tax paid during 2011 to 2014. 3. Heard both sides and perused the documents. 4. The refund of this nature is required to be filed in terms of Section 102 of Finance Bill 2016, wherein, the time limit for such refund claims has been set as 6 months from the date on which the Finance Bill 2016 receives the assent of the President. The relevant portion is extracted below:- 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for the claim of refund of service tax sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund earlier and the same being rejected has come to the knowledge of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to his diligent verification. Even before the Tribunal in their Appeal Papers submitted on 07/02/2023, the Appellant has not disclosed any details of their first refund claim of Rs.15,85,089/- being rejected by the OIO dated 31/1/2017. Because of this, the Tribunal was forced to spend precious time in trying to understand the matter. It becomes clear that the Appellant has been trying to get the refund somehow or the other by concealing several facts. Even after knowing fully well that their case was covered under the Refund falling under Section 102 (3) of the Finance Bill, 2016, still they have made attempt to get his amount as a general r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
