9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the stipulated time frame provided under the statue. Thus, for the lapses on the part of the Department, the appellant should not be held responsible and should not be deprived of its legitimate right to claim refund of service tax as provided under the statue. The initial letter dated 30.03.2014 filed before the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, requesting for transfer/ adjustment of excess paid amount into the Chandigarh Account, should be considered as the application for refund in terms of Section 11 B of the Act. Since the said application was filed within one year from the relevant date i.e. payment of Service Tax, the claim of the appellant, is not barred by limitation of time. Rejection of refund on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , New Delhi. 04/11/2011 Last amendment of registration certificate of Lalit, New Delhi. 11/04/2013 Registration of Lalit, Chandigarh. Unit at Chandigarh was in project stage for part of month of December 2013, hence the service tax liability related to the projects was discharged at New Delhi under New Delhi Registration. Once the Chandigarh Unit became operational, the Service Tax liability upto the months of February 2014, instead of being discharged under Chandigarh Registration No., due to clerical error was discharged under Delhi Registration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date, the same is clearly barred by limitation of time. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. Perusal of the above date chart makes the position clear that due to inadvertence, the service tax was deposited with the jurisdictional service tax authorities at Delhi and that explaining the situation and circumstances of the case, the appellant had requested the Chief Commissioner of Delhi to transfer/ adjust the excess amount paid by it into the Chandigarh Registration Account. However, after lot of persuasion, since the Department did not consider the request of the appellant, a formal refund application was filed by it on 15.07.2016. It further transpires from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
