9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion wherein they have given specific reasons explaining the delay but the Assistant Commissioner did not consider those reasons and simply observed that they are not genuine. Further it is found that the Notification No.12/2013 itself gives him a discretion to condone the delay for bona fide reasons and in the present case, the reasons given by the appellant are very much genuine. Further in the appellants own case for the earlier period, the delay in filing the refund claim was condoned. In an identical case, the CESTAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/S WS INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL TAX [ 2019 (12) TMI 1091 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has also condoned delay of approximately 3 years in filing the refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... introduction of CGST Act, 2017, Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 has been omitted by virtue of Section 173 of the CGST Act and consequently the refund claim has been filed beyond one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made by the claimants. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 12/12/2018 rejected the refund of ₹ 43,54,365/- in respect of Management or Business Consultant Services and only sanctioned a refund of ₹ 11,114/- in respect of Rent-a-cab operator service and GTA service. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y powers to extend the time frame for filing of the refund claim. He further submitted that the substantial benefit of refund should not be denied particularly when the sanctioning authority has been vested with the discretion to grant extension of time in terms of condition stipulated in para 3(III)(e) of the said Notification. Learned counsel also submitted that in their own case reported in 2016(43) STR 468 (Tri. Bang.), this Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the refund application. He also cited their own Final Order No.21497/2014 dt. 25/08/2014, there also the delay was condoned. He further submitted that the appellant has a good case on merit and has complied with all the conditions of the Notification and the SEZ Act which pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed in the exemption Notification. If there is any delay, there must be sufficient grounds for doing so but the appellant had not produced sufficient grounds and therefore, their request for condonation of delay was correctly rejected by both the authorities below. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the short point to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner was correct in rejecting the request of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the refund claim under Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013 when the Notification has provided for such condonation. Further I find that the appellant has given detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 291/2012, dated 12-7-2012 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application of the appellant on limitation and moreover, the spirit of the notification is such that a liberal approach would be adopted while considering the condonation of delay in filing the refund application. The learned appellant s counsel s argument that since the scheme was new and there was lot of confusion regarding the same on account of lack of knowledge, a separate application along with refund claim was not filed and keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rallies India Ltd. v. CC cited (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit has to be adhered to and once the refund claim is hit by limitation, no refund claim could be sanctioned. 8 . In this factual matrix, considering the situation of the appellant during the relevant period as explained by the Learned Counsel, I condone the delay in filing the refund claim and direct the original authority to sanction refund claim to the extent admissible on merits. The appeal is allowed as above. 7. The issue is squarely covered by the appellant s own case for the previous period as well as the decision of the Tribunal at Hyderabad and hence by following the ratio of the said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on time bar is not sustainable in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
