9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was given a copy of the range officer s report. On perusal of the range officer report, it is categorically stated by the range officer that the refund claim dated 14.06.2017 is well within time. 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, 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.40570 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41036/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich actual payment of service tax was made by the said SEZ Unit to the registered service provider. But clause (f) state that only one claim can be filed for every quarter. The original authority had called for a report from the range officer in which the Range Officer has categorically stated that the refund claim filed on 14.06.2017 is well within the time-limit. Though, the appellant was not issued any show-cause notice raising allegations for rejecting the refund, the authorities below have wrongly rejected the refund stating that the same is time-barred. The range officer has given the details of the invoices for the period 18.05.2016 to 30.06.2016 and has observed in his report that these invoices do not pertain to the quarter july, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced as under:- I find enormous force in their contention. It is observed that the appellant should have been provided with a copy of Range Officer letter O.C.No.117/2017, dated 07.11.2017 for offering their comments and to defend themselves and an opportunity of being heard to the claimant, before rejection of the part of their refund claim would have been in order. I find that the impugned order is totally silent about the contents of the Range Officer report and there are no findings of the respondent in detail as to how the part of the refund claim was disallowed. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and it is not possible to know the reasons for rejection of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
