Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the Assistant Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise shall permit the applicant to file the application even beyond the period of limitation. Since due to the genuine and practical difficulties, the appellant was not in a position to obtain the permission from the Development Commissioner, it has applied for extension of time period for filing the refund application before the service tax authorities. The action on the part of the appellant seems reasonable and justified for the purpose of condonation of delay, which has specifically been provided in the Notification. Thus, I am of the view that rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation will not hold good and the application should merit consideration for gr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation of time. The other ground mentioned in the show cause notice was that the approval has not been obtained from the Development Commissioner, authorizing rent -a -cab service for the authorized operation of the appellant. The show cause notice dated 23.05.2014 was adjudicated vide order dated 16.01.2015, wherein refund claim application for ₹ 6,78,811/- was rejected. In appeal against the said order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 has upheld rejection of refund application in the adjudication order. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal. 2 Shri Rachit Jain, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had applied for authorization certificate regardin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Tullow India Operations Ltd., reported in 2005 (189) ELT 401 (S.C.). 3. Shri H.S. Saini, the ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue on the other hand, submits that since the Notification dated 20.06.2012 clearly mandates that the refund application has to be filed within one year from the relevant date, such time limit prescribed has to be strictly complied with for the purpose of obtaining the benefit provided therein. To support his stand that while interpreting the exemption Notification, there is no room for any intendment; the ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Golden Dew Tea Factory vs. CCE, Coimbatore, reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 358 (Tri-Ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of limitation will not hold good and the application should merit consideration for grant of refund. With regard to interpretation of the beneficial Notification, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Tullow India Operations (supra) have held as follows:- 34. In almost a similar situation, the question came up before this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.P.V. Engg. Industries [2003 (153) E.L.T. 485] (wherein one of us, B.P. Singh, J. was a member) which was answered stating that an assessee although was otherwise entitled to obtain the benefit of an exemption certificate, the same should not ordinarily be denied to it because of any administrative delay over which he had no say in the following words : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. The certificate placed at page 204 in the appeal paper-book clearly shows that the transportation services were availed by the appellant for transportation of its employees from Indore to Pithampur and back. Thus, wrong mention of the name of place i.e. Bombay will not take away the benefit of refund, to which the appellant is statutorily entitled to. The decision of Tribunal in the case of Golden Dew Tea Factory (supra) cited by the ld. D.R. for Revenue is factually different from the facts of the present case inasmuch as, the issue before the Tribunal in the said decided case was concerning with the interpretation of the exemption Notification, whether it is mandatory or procedural. Contrary is the case in hand, where the issue invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates