9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in October, 2014. Therefore, the refund application has been filed within time limit and rejection of refund to the extent of ₹ 6,55,298/- on this account is incorrect and needs to be set aside. Even otherwise, the notification itself provides for extension of this time by the Asst. Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner. Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 8,80,140/- on account of services for which they had not permission of the Unit Approval Committee of the Development Commissioner? - Held that:- This approval being an essential requirement of the Exemption N/N. 12/2013-ST needs to be fully complied with if the appellant seeks to claim refund under the notification. There is nothing on record to show that the approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner. Thus, in all, an amount of ₹ 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. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant takes us through the facts of the case that they are engaged in providing debtor management services to their group banks located outside India and they have claimed refund of Cenvat Credit on various input services utilized by them for providing output services in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. The relevant period is October, 2013 to December, 2013. The refund application was filed by them on 03.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49 (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 dated 26 August 2013]. 5. Learned counsel argued that in view of the provisions of General Clauses Act as confirmed in various decisions cited above, the period of one year must commence from November, 2013 only in this case and not from October, 2013 (which is the period in question) and accordingly, refund application filed by them is not time barred. On the second question of rejection of refund on the ground that those services were not approved by the Develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 treated as time barred in terms of the notification. The notification as it has been drafted requires the application to be filed within one year from the period for which the refund has been claimed. In this case, the refund application was filed for the period ending October, 2013 and in view of the General Clauses Act, this month cannot be reckoned while calculating the period of one year. It has to begin from November, 2013 and ends in October, 2014. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
