9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,08,685/- on 29.12.2014 under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 in respect of service tax paid on taxable services utilized for export of goods made during the period from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The said service tax refund claimed by them was in fact paid by challans during the year 2013-2014 under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) as having not discharged the service tax liability. Both the lower authorities have held that the refund claims are hit by limitation as per the provisions of Notification and as also under the statute. 4. Learned Counsel takes the Bench through the various records and submits that the lower authorities have erred in rejecting the appeal without considering the factual aspect. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental Representative reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the issue is regarding the rejection of refund claim due to the same filed beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided under Notification No. 41/2012. It is undisputed that the refund applications were filed on 29.12.2014 under Notification No. 41/2012. The said notification permits an assessee to file the refund application of service tax paid on various services utilized for manufacturing of the goods and exporting the same and it also provides for filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. 7. It is see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of export or date of payment, whichever is later. The argument is fallacious. This interpretation would mean expounding the notification. This would further mean reading words and phrases into the notification, which was not intended by the drafters in the first place. Nevertheless, this would mean going beyond what the Apex Court has directed of how a notification is interpreted [paragraph 9 supra]. The argument of the appellant therefore is not tenable. The wordings of the notification, clearly state, that the refund application is to be filed within a stipulated period from the date of export and not from the date of payment. 8. In view of the foregoing, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that impugned order is cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
