9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment and the date of payment in the present case was 05.08.2009 and the refund was preferred on 04.11.2009 which is beyond the period of one year - reliance placed in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. [1997 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the “relevant date” for the purpose of refund u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts had filed a refund claim on 04.11.2009 seeking refund of ₹ 19,85,463/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Three only) being the service tax paid on the commission, refunded to their client viz., M/s. HAL, Bangalore. During the verification of the refund claim, it was noticed that the appellants had paid service tax amounting to ₹ 41,12,567/- (Rupees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. After following the due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund vide Order-in-Original holding the same as time-barred. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who also upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11B should reckon from 24.08.2009 when the appellant returned the amount to the HAL and not from the initial payment which is 05.08.2008. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that Section 11B is very clear and unambiguous. He further submitted that refund has to be filed within one year from the date of payment and the date of payment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
