9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any authority - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20287/2017-SM - 22440/2017 - Dated:- 13-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Parashivamurthy, Dy. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 31/08/2016 / 18/10/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the Department and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s. Cannanore Handloom Exports (respondent) are engaged in the manufacture and export of fabrics and also having service tax regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same issue. He further submitted that the refund application filed under Section 11B is clearly time barred as the same has been filed on 14/08/2012 whereas the assessee has paid the service tax for the period up to 31/03/2007. He further submitted that the Hon ble High Court of P H in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2015(321) ELT 434 (P H)] has held that if the application for refund is filed beyond the prescribed statutory period, then in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI [1997(89) ELT 247 (SC)], the same cannot be entertained unless the refund was as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. He further submitted that the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dt. 26/09/2011 clarified that service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India to a recipient in India would arise w.e.f. 18/04/2006 only. He also submitted that the respondent had filed the refund claim for ₹ 4,11,364/- but the original authority had only granted ₹ 3,29,633/-. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the issue required to be decided in the present case is whether the refund claim of service tax filed by the assessee after the period of limitation prescribed under the law is to be sanctioned or not, without raising the issue of limitation. The contention of the learned advocate is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
