9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of export of its goods claiming that the place of removal of exported goods is the factory gate and that on 'input services' used at the port, it was entitled to rebate as per the Notification. Held that:- the contention of appellant that since the delay was not considerable, the authorities below should have exercised discretion and condoned the same is not acceptable. Paragraph 3(g) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 - Final Order No. 50881/50883/2016 - Dated:- 29-2-2016 - G. Raghuram, President For the Appellant : B S Rawat, Adv For the Respondent : Mrs Kanu Verma, AR ORDER Per G. Raghuram Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants and the ld. A.R. for the respondent/Revenue. 2. These appeals are filed by the same appellant against three orders-in-original dated 30.9.2014; 23.7.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of removal of the exported goods is the factory gate and that on 'input services' used at the port, it was entitled to rebate as per the Notification, and was thus entitled to refund. 4. The impugned order concurrently rejected the claim for refund on a plurality of grounds. The authority held that since the place of removal in the case of export was the port of export and services were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned the same. This contention does not commend acceptance by the Tribunal. Paragraph 3(g) of the Notification 41/2012-ST clearly indicates the period of limitation and provides no discretion for condonation of the delay. In the circumstances, it cannot be gainfully contended that the authority had a reservoir of discretion to condone the delay , if satisfied with reasons for the delay for mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
