9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red for the purpose of refund of the Service Tax, the objection raised by the Revenue that the claim is barred by limitation of time is not sustainable in view of the decisions cited by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. - since the refund application was filed in the proper format and the supporting documents were submitted subsequently, the principles decided in the case of Arya Exports (2005 (4) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) squarely applies to the facts of the present case, and thus, refund claim is maintainable. - appellant is eligible for refund of Service Tax under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the notification dated 7.72009 issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Central Excise Authorities i.e. certified copies of the documents and the consignment notes. The refund applciaiton was sought to be denied on the ground that the same has not been filed within one year from the relevant date. The Show Cause Proceedings initiated in this regard was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority, holding that the refund claim has been lodged within the stipulated time prescribed in the said notification. Being aggrieved with the said Adjudication order, the Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue was allowed in the impugned order, holding that the refund claim filed by the Respondent (appellant herein) is barred by limitation of time as prescribed under Section 11B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and the procedures prescribed therein have to be strictly adhere to and no relaxation can be provided for claiming the refund. To justify the above stand, the Ld. Jt. CDR relies on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs Commissioner of C. Ex, Pune reported in 2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC) and also chapter 9 of the CBEC manual of supplementary notes. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. The fact is not under dispute that the refund application was originally filed by the appellant on 2.11.2012 which is within one year from the relevant date i.e. date of export of Iron Ore. The additional documents desired by the Refund Sanctioning Authority were prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the principles decided therein are with regard to strict interpretation of the exemption notification and not in context with refund claim filed in terms of the notification dated 7.7.2009, where there is a specific provision that the refund has to be filed within one year form the relevant date. Since the initial refund application was filed by the appellant on 2.11.2012 which is within the stipulated period of one year, the requirement of the said notification has been duly complied with. Chapter 9 of CBEC manual of supplementary instructions is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the clarification furnished therein relates to refund claim under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
