9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is nothing in the language of the Notification to indicate or imply the application of time limit of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the right decision to apply the time limit as prescribed in the N/N. 41/07-ST. Refund claim - time limitation - Held that: - the adjudicating authority needs to reexamine the refund claim and appellant's contentions afresh on the basis of documents of the CHA and shipping bills to establish connection between the two as has been done for the refund already sanctioned - matter on remand. Appeal disposed off - part matter decided against appellant and part matter on remand. - ST/1204/2010 - A/61162/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 6-6-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax on the specified service for which refund had been claimed were not submitted. 2. Learned Advocate submits that while Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 06.10.2007 prescribes six months, this period was extended to one year in Notification No.17/2009-ST dt. 07.07.2009. Hence, the one year period should be applied as held by the Tribunal in the case Raymond Limited Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III-2015 (38) STR 441 (Tri.-Mum.) He also relied on the case of Ashok Granites Limited Vs. CCE, Salem-2016 (46) STR 875 (Tri. Chennai) to argue that time limit of Section 11B should be applied in this case as the notification was subordinate to Section 11B in Central Excise Act. 3. Ld. AR submits that the Notification No.41/2007-ST is a self-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such a situation) in Aaryan Mines Minerals Corpn. Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2013 (30) STR 78 (Tri-Ahd) and Amee Castor Derivatives Limited Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-2017 (17) STR 582 (Tri. Ahmd.) Learned Advocate has also relied on the judgement of this Tribunal in Raymond Limited Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III-2015 (38) STR 441 (Tri.-Mum.) in which the Tribunal has allowed the refund claim filed under Notification No.41/07-ST by applying the provisions of Notification NO.17/09-ST. In the said order, the appellant had filed refund claim in July, 2009 after the Notification No.17/09-ST dt. 07.07.2009. Hence, facts are different from this matter as refund claim in this case was filed in March, 2008 i.e. before the issuance of Notification No. 17/2009-ST, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
