9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m according to the department is 30.09.2017. It is brought to the notice that 29th, 30th of September, 2017 as well as 1st and 2nd October, 2017 were Government holidays and non-working days in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the next working day was only 03.10.2017. The appellant has approached the Alandur office on 03.10.2017 and from there they were directed to approach the Egmore office. Thus, the appellant has taken all steps to make the refund claim within time. Only because they had to file the refund claim at Egmore office, the delay of one day, if any, has occurred. There has been delay on the part of the SIPCOT to inform the appellant and also taking note of the fact that the last date for filing the refund claim was a holi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim. The said view was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned consultant Shri G. Santosh Kumar appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that Notification No.41/2016-ST was issued only on 22.09.2016, after the appellant had paid the service tax. The said service tax was collected by SIPCOT on 23.01.2015 and paid to the Central Government. Thus, the appellant was informed by SIPCOT that refund claim would be filed by them for the amount of service tax collected and paid by them. Later, they came to know that SIPCOT is not able to file refund claim and that appellant has to make refund claim separately. SIPCOT issued le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt added that SIPCOT has made refund claims on the basis of the very same notification and has obtained refund in respect of other customers. In the present case, since the service tax was collected from the appellant, the refund could not be claimed by SIPCOT and, therefore, the appellant was directed to file the refund claim by themselves. It is also pleaded by him that being a beneficial notification, whereby the Government has exempted service tax for progress and development of industries, the delay for filing the refund claim may be condoned. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for Revenue Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as per the Notification No.41/2016-ST, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of September, 2016 (both days inclusive). (2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected, but which would not have been so collected, had sub-section (1) been in force at all times. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for claim of refund of service tax shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of the President. 6. From the above, it can be seen that the refund claim has to be filed within a period of six months from 01.04.2017 when the notification has received the assent of the President of India. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that SIPCOT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay was only 03.10.2017. The appellant has approached the Alandur office on 03.10.2017 and from there they were directed to approach the Egmore office. Thus, the appellant has taken all steps to make the refund claim within time. Only because they had to file the refund claim at Egmore office, the delay of one day, if any, has occurred. 8. The learned consultant has also put forward the plea that the notification is a beneficial notification wherein it exempts service tax on Development Charges so as to give incentives for promotion of industry. Taking this fact into consideration and also the fact that there has been delay on the part of the SIPCOT to inform the appellant and also taking note of the fact that the last date fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
