9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by them at the instance of Revenue Authorities which itself was not in accordance with law. In this case also appellants took suo motu credit on 17.03.09 - It has to be noted if the Range Superintendent were to advise the appellant to file a refund claim immediately after reversing the entry, the refund claims would not have been time barred at all - Appeal is allowed - ST/421/2010 - A/77/WZB/AHD/2012 - Dated:- 16-12-2011 - B.S.V. MURTHY, J. S.J. Vyas for the Appellant. V.K. Agarwal for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant provided Erection and Commissioning service to M/s. Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. and raised invoice No. 17 dated 30.03.2008 for which they had paid service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the order of the original adjudicating authority, appellants filed appeal which has been rejected and the issue is before me. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the claim was submitted beyond one year from the date of payment of service tax. He submits that the stand taken by the department is wrong since the credit taken by them in their cenvat credit account of the service tax paid on 30.03.08 which was not due but was only a correction entry and since the original payment made on 30.03.08 was not due, it becomes correction of a wrong debit entry. Therefore the credit entry made by them in March 2009 cannot be held to be legally wrong and the decision of the Lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of and distinguished. Therefore the submissions made by the learned counsel that they were entitled to suo motu credit and therefore there was nothing wrong in availment of the credit has to be sustained. Once this is sustained, if the credit entry becomes a legal entry, the relevant date for the purpose of refund claim becomes the date on which reversal of its entry was made and refund claim was filed. Accordingly, the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of the limitation has to be set aside. Further, the case of the appellants is also supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Petro Specialities (P.) Ltd. ( supra ). In that case also, appellant had paid the tax on GTA service in cash and reversed the debit en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
