9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorized operations. Time limitation - Sub-clause (iii) (e) of Clause (3) of the notification - HELD THAT:- The bare perusal of the clause makes it clear that the relevant date from which is to reckon the period of limitation is the end of the month in which the SEZ Unit paid the Service Tax. It is the case of the appellant that from the date of the payment of service tax by him his refund claim is well within the period of limitation. From the order under challenge, it is clear that date of invoice to the ISD of appellant SEZ is taken as the starting point for the period of limitation - The date of payment of Service Tax is, however, not available on the record. It is not possible for us to verify as to whether the date of invoice an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time barred issue - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.52137 of 2019, 52140 of 2019 - Final Order No. 51743-51744/2019 - Dated:- 9-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.O.P. Bisht, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER RACHNA GUPTA: Present order disposes of two appeals as the appellant being common and the issue involved being similar. Sl. No. Appeal No. O-I-A No. Amt. of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. 2. We have heard Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.O.P. Bisht, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the refund has wrongly been rejected as barred by time, because the period of one year has to reckon from the date of actual payment of service tax made by the SEZ Unit. It is submitted that the appellants unit has an ISD at Head- quarters, Mumbai. The Adjudicating Authority has wrongly taken the date of invoice to the said ISD as the relevant date for computing the period of one year whereas the payment by the appellant SEZ was subsequent thereto. The refund claim applied by the appellant was well within one year from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority. Appeals are accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion as follows:- That there is no denial for appellant to be a SEZ unit nor there is denial of applicability of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 1st July, 2013. This Notification provides exemption to the services provided in SEZ Unit or developer of SEZ for authorized operations. The Notification Clause (2) recites The exemption shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on specified services received by the SEZ unit or the developer and used for the authorized operations. Since part of the refund has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority to verify as to what is the date on which the appellant, the SEZ Unit made the payment of service tax and then to adjudicate as to whether the impugned claims are within the time limit or not. 7. It is further observed from the aforesaid Clause that for the refund claims which could not be filed within one year of the relevant date, the Assistant Commissioner /Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, are vested with the power to condone the said delay to such extended period as they deem fit. The Original Adjudicating Authority herein has miserably been silent about its power of condonation. Though it has been recorded by the adjudicating authorities below that the Notification have to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
