9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. After following due process the lower authority examined their application in detail and allowed refund of Rs. 1,93,853/-. This sanction has not been disputed by the revenue. He also rejected an amount of Rs. 6,55,298/- on the ground that the refund application was filed after the period of one year specified in the Notification No. 12/2013-ST. He further rejected the claim of Rs. 8,80,140/- on the ground that these services were not approved by the Development Commissioner. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs. 15,35,438/- has not been allowed as refund to the appellant. Aggrieved, they appealed to the first appellate authority who, vide the impugned order, upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord "to". (2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887." 4. Therefore, he submits that for the purpose of calculating the period in question viz., October, 2013 cannot be reckoned for calculating one year. He relies on case laws of Haru Das Gupta Vs State of West Bengal [1972-AIR- 1293], Rollatainers Ltd vs CCE, Meerut-II [2002 (144) RLY 649 (Tri-Del)], LML Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur [2003 (152) ELT 375 (Tri-Del)], Collector of Central Excise Vs SAIL [1992 (61) ELT 732 (Tribunal)], Punjab Breweries Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigarh [1985 (20) ELT 420 (Tribunal)] and Econ Antri Ltd Vs Rom Industries [Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trued as has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar & Co and others [Civil Appeal No.3327/2007] and therefore the exemption notification must be strictly construed and read as it has been drafted. There is nothing on record to show that the services for which the appellant was denied refund on the ground that they were not approved were actually approved by the Development Commissioner. He prays that the appeal may be rejected. 8. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions on both sides. The two short points to be decided is whether the refund application filed by the appellant in October, 2014 for the period ending October, 2013 should be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
