9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on account of fact that the same was not required to be paid - Reference can be made to the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S NATARAJ AND VENKAT ASSOCIATES [ 2014 (5) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] laying down that the refund claim beyond the period of limitation provided under law is totally barred by limitation. Even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present appeal relates to refund claim of the appellant to the extent of ₹ 8,04,232/- (originally claimed as ₹ 22,98,805/-). The said refund claim was filed by the appellant on the ground that during the period September, 2012 to August, 2014 they have paid the service tax on various activities, which were exempt from service tax in terms of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. appearing for the Revenue, I find that every refund claim arises on account of fact that the same was not required to be paid. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Porcelain Electric Magg. Co. vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.), has held as under:- Refund Limitation Refund claim filed before Departmental authorities to be governed by the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
