9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority initially rejected the refund without stating any reasons against which the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter to the lower authority observing that the order is not a speaking one. In such de novo adjudication, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund stating that the claim is time-barred. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view taken by the refund sanctioning authority that the refund claim is time-barred. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax is made. In the present case, the invoices are dated 18.05.2016, 23.05.2016, 16.06.2016 and 30.06.2016. Therefore, the refund claim filed on 14.06.2017 has been rightly rejected on the ground of time bar. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The issue is with regard to the rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time-barred. At the outset, it has to be stated that no show-cause notice/deficiency memo was issued to the appellant stating reasons for rejecting the refund. The refund sanctioning authority in the first round of litigation has rejected the refund without stating any reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 23.03.2018, has remanded the matter directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund claim dated 14.06.2017 has been filled with the Divisional Officer on 14.06.2017 and hence, it is well within the time-limit of one year for the quarter of July, 2016 to September, 2016." 6. On reading of Condition No.(e) along with (f) of the notification, it can be seen that the assessee can file one claim for every quarter. The refund claim for invoices under dispute as stated above has been filed on 14.06.2017, which is well within the time. Therefore, on appreciation of facts, the refund claim filed is well within time, and, therefore, the rejection of the same stating the ground of limitation is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
