9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter, such time limit provided in the notification has to be strictly adhered to for consideration of the refund application. Tribunal in the case of K.S. Oils [2017 (3) TMI 422 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the time limit provided under N/N. 41/2007 dated 6.10.2007 is strictly applicable for consideration of refund of service tax - the refund claims filed in respect of quarter ending October to Dec. 2007 and Jan. to March 2008 are barred by limitation of time and thus, there is no infirmity in impugned order, in rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. With regard to the refund claim filed for the quarter ending April 2008 to June 2008, in terms of the notification dated 18.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides the time limit of one year for filing the refund application, the Central Govt. through the Notification dated 6.10.2007 cannot prescribe a different period for filing and entertaining refund application. Thus, he submits that since the refund application was filed within the stipulated time frame of one year from the relevant date, the same is not barred by limitation of time and the appellant should be entitled for refund of service tax paid by it. The ld. Advocate further submits that the appellant is entitled for refund of service tax paid during the quarter April 2008 to June 2008, inasmuch as, the refund claim was filed within six months from the date of issuance of the amending Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on dated 6.10.2007. With regard to consideration of the time limit of one year for filing of the refund application as provided under Section 11B ibid, we are of the view that the time limit prescribed therein is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, the Notification dated 6.10.2007 grants exemption from payment of service tax and such exemption is monitored/administered by way of filing the refund application. Since the present refund application is in relation to availment of the exemption, and is no way, connected with the erroneous payment of service tax, the time limit provided under Section 11B of the Act is not applicable and the time frame prescribed in the Notification dated 6.10.2007 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), it was held that the exemption available will be only on fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein. The Tribunal held that Notification No.41/2007 is available only on fulfilment of condition including filing of claim within time limit prescribed therein. The Tribunal noted that this is an exemption notification and not a refund within the scope of Section 11B. Similar ratio was adopted in Spark Engineering P. Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 71 (Tri.-Del.), in Calcutta Export Company v. CCE, Kolkata-II reported in 2016 (44) S.T.R. 672 (Tri. Kolkata), Sakay Overseas v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 456 (Tri.-Del.) and H.R. International (Unit-II) v. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R . 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
