9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in each quarter, therefore, the period of limitation is to counted one year from the last date of the said quarter is the date for filing the refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As, there is an ambiguity in the notification that what should be the relevant date. In the notification on the one hand, it has been stated that one refund claim is to be filed quarterly and on the other hand, it is saying that within one year from the date of receiving of the foreign convertible exchange, when a Notification is having ambiguity that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the assessee. Admittedly, it is an admitted position that there is an ambiguity in the notification, therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 02.06.2016. The same was also rejected as time barred, therefore, these appeals. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the M/s Penta Software Pvt. Ltd. submits that in terms of notification, the appellant was required to file one refund claim for the quarter ending September, 2016 within one year from the date of end of the quarter, but as per the amendment, they were required to file refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of the payment in foreign convertible exchange. The provisions of the said notification are contrary as one refund claim is required to be filed and is to be filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign convertible exchange. It is his further submission that the Larger Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As, there is an ambiguity in the notification that what should be the relevant date. In the notification on the one hand, it has been stated that one refund claim is to be filed quarterly and on the other hand, it is saying that within one year from the date of receiving of the foreign convertible exchange, when a Notification is having ambiguity that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the assessee as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mangalam Alloys Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Ahmedabad, reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. Ahmd), wherein this Tribunal held that when there are two possible views in the notification itself, then benefit is given to the assessee. Adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
