2016 (4) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : 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; 23.7.2014 14.10.2014 passed by the ld. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehradun, rejecting claims for refund of service tax remitted by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 not utilized by the appellant beyond the place of removal, the appellant was not entitled to refund. The authority also rejected appellant's claim on the bar o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 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 making an application for refund. 6. In so far as the finding that the services were not used beyond the place of removal, it is clear that the place of removal is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X