9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without considering limitation factor. However, Commissioner may also go into the limitation issue in de novo adjudication as pointed out by ld.Counsel as well as ld.DR. - bunch of all the 12 appeals are remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for finalization of the refund claims within three months from the date of receipt of this order so that long pending issue could be finalized - Matter remanded back. - Appeal No.ST/57837 to 57843/2013, Appeal No.ST/50926 to 50928/2014, Appeal No.ST/54376-54377/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.54547-54558/2014 - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocaate For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR. JUDGEMENT Per MANMOHAN SINGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... datory condition for claiming exemption and consequent refund of service tax in terms of notification No.41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007 as amended applicable during the period involved in this case. Though, appellant alongwith their appeal submitted copy of Agency Agreement dated 04.08.1996 with Mr.Sandip Bose Mullick, Middiesex, U.K., but it is not forthcoming from the facts available on record whether the entire amount of service tax paid on commission pertained to above commission agent only and also whether this agency agreement executed in August, 1996 was valid during the period of Jan. to March 09 involved in this case because one of the terms of the agreement is that it can be terminated by either side by giving 3 months notice. As such, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed that the new notification does not debar its applicability to exports that have taken place prior to its issuance. Therefore, the scheme prescribed under Notification No.17/2009-S.T. would be applicable even for such exports subject to conditions that refund claims are filed within the stipulated period of one year; and (b) no refund claim has been filed under previous notification. 7. When enquired whether this instruction was before the Commissioner (Appeals), ld.Advocate fairly states that this point was not before the Commissioner (Appeals) at that relevant time. 8. Learned counsel contested that the ground of time bar as per section 83 of the Act, the provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d these could not be restricted by the provisions contained in section 11B. He referred to para 25 of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case Corporation Bank vs.Saraswati Abharanasala-2009 (233) ELT 3 (SC) (which was relied upon by ld.Counsel) relating to Principle of purposive construction in a case of this nature to find out the object of the Act. 10. On limitation ld.DR contended that if the cases were sent for de novo adjudication on the request of appellants, instruction issued by Board must be kept in mind for proper appreciation of facts. 11. Heard both sides and examined the records. 12. Simple issue involved in this set of appeals is regarding non providing of records by the appellants for finalization of their refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
