9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the same is time barred as well as the appellant has not produced any document regarding co-relation between the exported goods and the service availed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of textile goods and fabrics. They filed a refund claim on 30.03.2009 on account of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t certain clarification, which was clarified later on. Therefore the refund claim was filed in time. It is further submitted that the Notification No. 17/09 dated 07.07.2009 stipulates that refund claim can be filed within one year from the date of export. In this case the quarter ends on September 2008, which is within one year of the time prescribed under Notification No. 17/09 dated 07.07.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary which the appellant has failed to do so. Therefore, lower authorities have rightly rejected the refund claim. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. The first issue in the matter is that whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation or not? In the light of the Notification No. 17/09 dated 07.07.2009 in appellant's own case, as it has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istake by travelling beyond the scope of show-cause notice holding that they should have filed refund claim in prescribed format. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the show-cause notice is the foundation of the matter and nobody can travel beyond the allegations in the show-cause notice. Admittedly, allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
