9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 1.3.11 – Held that:- Do not agree with the argument that the time limit under Notification dated 1.3.11 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date - the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay - the delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 9/09-ST dated 3.3.09. The claim was filed on 7.2.11 and according to Revenue, there was a delay of 17 days in filing the refund claim. Clause (f) of the proviso to the said notification is as under "the claim for refund shall be filed, within six months or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of payment of service tax by the persons availing service to the person providing the service. He points out that refunds in question were rejected by the adjudicating authority after the new notification had come into force. After the commencement of the notification, the adjudicating authority should have considered the new time limit while rejecting the claim. Therefore, orders of the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication dated 1.3.11 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider the fact that even under the earlier notification, the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay. The delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power, he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for not exercising such powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
