2017 (7) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present case is that whether the refund of service tax in terms of Notification No.52/2001-ST dated 30-12-2011 in respect of service tax paid on the input service and used for export of service is admissible when it is filed beyond the limitation of one year as provided under said notification. 2. Ms. Ginita Bodari, Ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion to any authority to condon the delay. Accordingly, rejection of refund claim on the time bar is legal and correct. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Volkswagan India P. ltd Vs. commr. CE Pune-I[2016(14)STR 716(Tri.-Mum)] (b) Sakay Overseas Vs. Commn of CE, Ludhiana[2014(33) STR 456(Tri. Del.)] (c) Vodafone Cellular Ltd Vs. Commr. of CE Pune-III[ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry time limit, the refund must be filed within one year from the date of export. There is no discretion provided for any authority to condon the delay. In the present case undisputedly refund claim was filed after one year from the date of exports. The decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel is not relevant for the reason that in the said case firstly refund is limited to custom duty and the assessee w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X