9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included. Second and the most significant reason to negativate such logic is that the rule provided appellant to file refund claim within one year and going by the reason cited by the respondent-department, the same would expire on 16.01.2017 but it is paradoxical to the provision contained in Clause 2 of Board s Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) that authorised claimant to filed only one refund application in one quarter. This would extinguish the right of filing refund claim within one year by squeezing it further by atleast 16 days. The findings of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] that the limitation period woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Infotech Pvt. Ltd. case reported in 2 018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-LB on the ground that the period for the refund claim pertains to the period after amended Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 has come into force and not alone on Notification 27/2012-CE (NT) basing on which Span Infotech order was passed. 3. In its memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of the appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Somesh Jain submitted that having regard to Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that provided a detailed formula for calculating the amount of refund that has to be applied to the entire period vis.-a-vis. Provision contained in Clause 2 of Board s Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) which permits filing of one claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not shown in the invoices and Service Tax registration was not reflected in the invoices. He further argued that Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 had amended Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) in order to give effect to the Larger Bench decision in Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and therefore learned Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly rejected the appellant s refund claim filed on 12.02.2018 seeking refund of amounts shown in FIRC dated 17.01.2017, since it was filed after laps of stipulated one year period, for which interference in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Tribunal is uncalled for. 5. Heard submissions from both the sides and perused the case record. The only logic that can be put fort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
