9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, the appellant has filed the refund claim after expiry of the period of 60 days. When it is so then it is the contravention of the provisions of clause 2(e) of the N/N. 49/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/2554/2010-SM - 52961/2017 - Dated:- 17-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) For The Appellant : Shri Ashutosh Upadh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund of service tax of ₹ 12,764/- for the tax paid on bank charges, the appellant is not insisting on sanction of this claim. (iv) These claims have been mainly rejected by the Revenue on the ground that they are time barred. The appellant pleads that their claim is not time barred saying that the time period of six months is to be computed from the date of individual exports made. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause 2(e) of the Notification No. 49/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007. Further the case laws quoted by the appellant are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances as the present case pertains to the period of March 2008 to Sept., 2008, when the time limit for filing refund claim was 60 days only. 6. In the result, the impugned order sustains and the Appeal is rejected as without merits. (Dictat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
