9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 666 of 2010 with C.O. No. 51560 of 2016 - ST/A/50516/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Appearance Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant. Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the Respondent. Per. B. Ravichandran :- The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 02/03/2010 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. The dispute involved in the present case is relating to time limit applicable to the refund claim filed by the respondent in terms of Notification 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007. The respondent filed claim for refund of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,04,226/- on 06/02/2009 with reference to goods expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n connection with export of goods. The claim cannot be rejected on the technical ground of having been filed beyond six months. He further stated that the substantive provision in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the refund of service tax under Finance Act, 1994 cannot be over-ruled by a provision of notification. He also relied on certain decided cases to say that the delayed filing of claim is only a procedural lapse and considering the provision of Section 11B, the same has to be admitted and sanctioned. 5. We note that there is a cross appeal by respondent filed on 28/09/2016. The Department s appeal was filed in 2010. The respondent submits that there is a change of management and the connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious decided cases relied upon by both the sides. The respondent relied on various cases in support of the impugned order. In CCE, Pune vs. Chandrashekhar Exports reported in 2015 TIOL 2448 CESTAT MUMBAI, Sandoz Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad reported in 2013 (30) S.T.R. 527 (Tri. Ahmd.) and Raymond Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai III reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 441 (Tri. Mumbai), the discussion and reference was to provision of Notification 17/2009-ST also. Admittedly, the said notification which succeeded Notification 41/2007-ST provided for time limit of one year for filing refund claim. We note that in the present case the claim was filed in February 2009 much before the issue Notification 17/2009-ST dated 07/07/2009. Sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of such a system alone will remove any kind of arbitrary exercise of power. The Courts are obliged to interpret notifications of this nature, in such a manner that the power of discretion is reduced to the minimum . 9. The Hon ble High Court was examining the question whether the conditions stipulated in an exemption notification can be said to be a mere matter of procedure, on which some amount of laxity can be given. It was held that the conditions mentioned in the notification cannot be considered as mere procedural requirements which can be relaxed. Further, in Midex Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2016 (41) S.T.R. 125 (Tri. Del.), it was held that the exemption available will be only on fulfillment of condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
