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

2017 (5) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... :- 30-3-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sh. Nikhii Nagpal, CA for the Appellant(s) Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed the refund claims of Service Tax on the services received for export of the goods under Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 07.07.2009. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that they have been filed the refund claims beyond the time limit prescribed as per said notification. Aggrieved from the said orders, appellants are before me. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that they have filed the refund claims although beyond the period of one year from the date of export of the goods but that is only a procedural laps .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (supra) is based on the decision of Pune Vs. Chandrashekhar Exports (supra) and in the both cases, the issue before this Tribunal was that whether the time limit prescribed in the Notification No.41/2007-ST 06.10.2007 is applicable or not? As per the said notification, the time limit for filing the refund claim was six months and the said limit was extended to the period of one year by Notification No.17/2009 dt. 07.07.2009. Admittedly, in both the cases, the refund claims were filed within one year, therefore, this Tribunal was held that as refund claims have been filed within prescribed limit as per the Notification No.17/2009, the refund claims were admissible. 7. As the cases in hand, the refund claims have been filed beyond on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs. CCE ST, Bhavnagar (supra) , this Tribunal has observed as under:- 2. The relevant facts may be noticed. The appellant is a manufacturer of exportable goods and for the purpose of such manufacture used specified services. Such services which were inputs in the manufacture suffered service tax which was remitted by those service providers. The Central Government, exercising the powers under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, issued Notification No.17/2009-S.T., dated 77-2009, exempting the taxable services enumerated in an appended table, received by exporters of goods and used for export of such goods, from the whole of service tax under Sections 66 and 66A of the Act, subject to the conditions specified in the corresponding .....

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