9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication prescribes any time limit it must be complied with. It is not open to this Bench to change the notification to enlarge, constrict or otherwise modify it. The vires of the notification has not been questioned or tested nor has any portion of it been declared ultra vires. In this case, the refund application was filed more than one year after the export. Accordingly, the refund is not admissible as per the Notification No. 41/2012-ST. Refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 31016 of 2018 - A/30618/2019 - Dated:- 5-7-2019 - Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the appellant. Shri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Deputy Commissioner for the Respondent. ORDER PER: MR. P. VEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during Personal Hearing. The questions to be decided are i) Whether the decision of adjudicating authority rejecting the refund of ₹ 25,87,200/- for the reason that the appellant filed 13 shipping bills beyond one year from the date of letter of export is proper or otherwise. ii) Whether the decision of adjudicating authority rejecting the refund of ₹ 3,01,365/- for the reason that there was short receipt of amounts in Bank Realization Certificates in respect of certain shipping bills is proper or otherwise. 5.1 With regard to submission of refund claim pertaining to 13 shipping bills, the appellant accepted that claims were filed on 05.06.2017 whereas the LEOs date was between 27.05.2016 to 30.05.2017 which resulted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im the rebate of ₹ 25,87,200/- and uphold the decision of adjudicating authority. 5.3 With regard to rejection of ₹ 3,01,365/- concerned, the appellant contended that there is no short receipt of sale proceeds of exported goods as they had realized in full amount mentioned in the shipping bills and also enclosed copies of BRCs for evidencing the same. From the impugned order, I observed that there was a short receipt of 565060 USD in respect of shipping bill no. 8460784 dated 24.06.2016, which ultimately resulted in rejecting of refund claim of ₹ 3,01,365/-. On verification of BRCs in respect of aforesaid shipping bill, I find that there is no short receipt of sale proceeds. With regard to difference of 80 USD concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a No. 5.2 and allow the refund of ₹ 3,01,365/- as discussed in Para 5.4. It is clear from the above that the appellant had filed a refund claim after one year from the date of let export order in respect of exported goods. The relavant date to be considered for one year for filing refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST is the date of let export order . I have also considered the reliance placed by the appellant on the order of Tribunal in the case of Ashok Granites Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Salem [2016 (046) STR 0875 (Tri-Mad)]. It has been held therein that since Section 11B of the Central Excise Act prescribes the relevant date for the purpose of that section to be, interalia, in the case of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
