9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmanabhan, Member (Technical) Mr. Rachit Jain, Advocate For Appellant Mr. Rajan Khanna, DR For Respondent ORDER Per Mr. V. Padmanabhan The appellant is directed against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Indore. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of galvanized steel sheet, plain sheet and coils falling under 7210 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant submitted a refund claim for service tax of ₹ 2,19,617/-, dated 06.01.2007. The claim pertains to the period, October, ,2008 to December, 2008 and was filed before the Asst. Commissioner on 12.02.2009. The Asst. Commissioner sanctioned the refund partially. The refund claim pertaining to service tax paid on exports relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r during which the said goods have been exported. In the present case, since the export has been taken place during the period April June, 2008 and the refund claim has been filed on 12.02.2009, the rejection of a portion of the claim as time barred is required to be upheld. He in turn supported his arguments with the following case laws:- (i) Midex Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2016 (41) STR 125 (Tri.-Del.)] (ii) Spark Engg. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2013 (31) STR 71 (Tri.-Del.)] (iii) Life Long India Ltd. Vs. CCEST, Meerut-I[2016 (43) STR 314 (Tri.-Del.)] (iv) Pioneer India Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2014 (301) ELT 59 (Del.)] 5. The time limit for availing of the refund claims under Notification No.41/2007-ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as refund, they have argued that their claim merits sanction. Para 2(e) of the Notification specifies that the refund claim should be filed within a period of 60 days from the end of the quarter in which the exports have been taken place. It is also a condition of the Notification that before claiming refund of the service tax paid on the services used for export of goods, the service tax involved is required to be paid to the Govt. exchequer. In the present case, the service tax on GTA services, even though pertaining to exports during the period April June, 2008 stands paid only in December, 2008/January, 2009. Even though the sixty days time limit would expire on 31.08.2008, the appellant could not have filed a claim before paying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly, in the case of CCEST, Kanpur Vs. Pacific Leather Finishers (supra) cited by the appellant. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand, has referred to several judgements of the Tribunal, where it has been held that the time limits prescribed in Notification No.41/2007-ST has to be strictly observed. I find that in none of the decisions cited by Revenue, the peculiar facts of the present case has been dealt with, wherein the service tax has been paid beyond the period of sixty days form the end of the quarter granted under the Notification, to file the refund claim. 8. In line with the above discussions, we hold that the refund will have to be held has filed within time in respect of those exports for which refund s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
