9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded leaves India but on the other hand the notification states that the date of export shall be the date on which the LET export order is given. If a limitation period is sought to be imposed in respect of refund claims, it must be introduced by legislation, given the expropriatory consequences of such a limitation period. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspect) cannot be formulated or prescribed by subordinate legislation. The parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations. Sub-ordinate legislation cannot prevail or be made in such cases. The imposition of period of limitation, without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,85,973/- On adjudication of all the above three claims of the appellants, the Asst. Commissioner granted refund of certain amount and rejected the remaining amount on the ground of time barred as under:- S. No. Refund sanctioned Rejected Period involved 1 ₹ 22,536/- ₹ 1,32,016/- 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013 2 ₹ 4,15,406/- ₹ 94,308/- 01.07.2013 to 30.09.2013 3 ₹ 55,851/- ₹ 1,32,122/- 01.10.2013 to 31.12.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.07.2013 2. 02.07.2013 03.07.2013 03.07.2013 03.07.2013 08.07.2013 3. 08.07.2013 08.07.2013 02.07.2014 02.07.2014 02.07.2014 He further submitted that as per the above details of shipping bill of exports made, it can be derived that date of permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation by the proper officer is on 08.07.2013 and date of filing rebate claim is on 02.07.2014, which is well within one year from the date of permission by the proper officer. Therefore, it can be concluded that the date of shipment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. He further submitted that the LAA correctly rejected the refund claim of ₹ 1,32,122/- in terms of Notification No. 41/2012-ST since, the let export order was issued on 13.09.2013 and 19.09.2013 but the claim was filed on 01.10.2014 and so on in other two claims also. The appellants should have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of issue of let export order. Therefore, the refund rejected by both the authorities is correct and in accordance with law and the impugned order may be upheld. 4. After hearing both sides. On perusal of OIO s of the adjudicating authority, I find that the claims submitted by the appellants were scrutinized thoroughly as per the para 3 (g) of Notification No. 41/2012-ST and he has take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 reads as follows : - g) The claim for rebate of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the said goods. Explanation For the purposes of this clause the date of export shall be the date on which the proper officer of Customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the said goods for exportation under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); It is seen that in the definition of relevant date u/s 11B , there is a mention that if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded leaves India but on the other hand the notification states that the date of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
