9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not provide for any time limit within which the rebate claim should have been filed and the same. The rejection of rebate claims is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/331/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20444/2019 - Dated:- 15-5-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Syed Peeran, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the common impugned order dt. 28/12/2008 vide which the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the rebate claims filed by the appellant and upheld the Orders-in-Original. Since the Commissioner(Appeals) disposed of all the three appeals filed before him by a common order, all the rebate claims are being disposed by this order. The details of three rebate claims are given below:- Period Date of filing refund claim Refund claim amount (Rs.) April 2005 to May 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vi. The original authority rejected the refund claim for the period October 2005 to March 2006 on the additional ground of time bar in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Original, appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the Orders-in-Original. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the requisite declarations as required under conditions laid down in Notification No.12/2005-ST has been filed on 31/05/2005 and revised on 16/06/2005. He further submitted that this fact has been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner in the Order-in-original No.98/2008 dt. 30/07/2008. He also submitted that filing of declaration is a procedural requirement and the delay, if any, in filing the same cannot depriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate in respect of input services if such input services have been used in respect of output services exported. With regard to rejection of refund claim on time bar, he submitted that Notification No.12/2005-ST does not provide for any time limit within which the rebate claim have to be file nor provides for applicability of time limit specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. For this, he placed reliance on Dorcas Market Markers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012(281) ELT 227 (Mad.)] and Dy. Commissioner of CE, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. [2015(321) ELT 45 (Mad.)] wherein it has been held that the time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act cannot be made applicable to rebate of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules and Notification No.19/2004-CE. This decision was relied upon by this Tribunal in their own case cited supra wherein it was held that if period of limitation had not been mentioned in a notification, where other necessary conditions have been mentioned, then such an omission is a conscious omission by the legislature and thus held that rebate claim filed beyond a period of one year under Notification No.12/2005-ST d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erintendent of Service Tax does not mention the other premises from where taxable services are exported. He further submitted that the verification report of the jurisdiction Asst. Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner as stipulated under para 3.2 of the Notification No.12/2005-ST is not forthcoming from the records / documents enclosed to the claim. He further submitted that the export invoices do not contain requisite details such as service tax registration number and nature of services exported etc. and there is some discrepancies in the input service invoices regarding the address of the appellant. He further submitted that the rebate claim for the period October 2005 to March 2006 is barred by time in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it has been filed beyond the period of one year. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record and all the case laws relied upon by the appellant cited supra, we find that the requisite declaration as required under condition of Notification has been filed on 31/05/2005 and revised on 16/06/2005 on account of some inadvertent error and the same has been placed on record. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
