9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favor of appellant. - ST/Misc./40816/2017 & ST/40277 And 40278/2014 - Final Order Nos. 42759-42760/2018 - Dated:- 1-11-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER In both these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim filed by them under Notification No.9/2009. 2. The ld. counsel for appellants Shri Harish Bindumadhavan submitted that in Appeal No. ST/40277/2014, the issue is that the refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of an amount of ₹ 14,65,106/- was rejected for the reason that the category / classification of services noted by the service provider in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted the findings in the impugned order. He argued that since the Real Estate Agent Service are not approved service for the appellant, the refund has been rightly rejected. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of the records, I find that as per the agreement the service provider is appointed as property manager for the appellant. In clause 4, the fees for the property manager is fixed. The said activities of the property manager include marketing of immovable property also. In certain cases, the property manager has undertaken marketing on immovable property of the appellant and has issued the invoices classifying the service as Real Estate Agent Service. In fact, the agreement itself stipulates that there is no agency relationship be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order and he specifically adverted to page 7 of the impugned order. The appellants have not furnished satisfying reasons for the delay caused and therefore the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim. 8. Heard both sides. 9. After hearing submissions made by both sides and perusal of Notification 9/2009, I find that though the time-limit of six months is envisaged for filing the refund claim, there is also provision for extending the time. However, the period for extending the time has not been fixed in the notification. It is brought out that the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
