9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri S. Sukla, (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: M. V. Ravindran.] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-030-2016-17 dated 18.11.2016. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant fact that arises for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details, appellants filed refund claim of ₹ 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 discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant did not pay any commission to the foreign agent within one year of export of the goods. Hence the question of discharging the service tax as such commission would not arise. It is his further submission that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.K.S.K Leather Processors Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (35) ELT 956] would apply in the case in hand. 5. Learned Departmental 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 appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund claim filed by the appellant hit by limitation of time. The appellant in his averment has argued that refunds can be filed only after the service tax was paid; that since the refund claims were filed within one year from payment of service tax, [which as is mentioned was paid under VCES, 2013] a harmonious interpretation would make the limitation one year from the 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
