9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of payment of Service Tax - Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in IOCL Case [2011 (12) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1994 is not a procedural requirement and the delay in filing the claim cannot be condoned - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No.ST/10067/2018 - A/10438/2018 - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 604/- but rejected the amount of ₹ 3,61,563/- on the ground of time bar. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld Advocate for the appellant submits that the amount of excess Service Tax paid by them since not payable, being not a tax to be collected, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,61,563/- is barred by limitation, It is not in dispute that the said amount has been paid between 18.3.2015 and 8.3.2015 and the refund claim was filed by the appellant on 24.5.2016 ie.,beyond one year from the date of payment of Service Tax. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in IOCL Case (supra) observed as follows: We are unable to uphold the contention that such period of limitation wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
