9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant is a scheduled commercial bank and they were registered under the provisions of service tax and were paying service tax under various heads like Banking and Financial Services, Business Auxiliary Service etc., for the period ended on 30.06.2017. The appellant filed their return in form ST-3 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermissible under Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017, the appellant filed their refund claim on 15.11.2018 for refund of the said amount of Rs.1,18,237/-. The said refund claim was rejected pursuant to hearing the appellant, on contest the refund was rejected on the ground of time bar, observing that the refund should have been claimed within a period of twelve months from 21.09.2017 being the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified for such revision under the existing law, and if, pursuant to such revision, any amount is found to be refundable or cenvat credit is found to be admissible to any taxable person, the same shall be refunded to him in cash under the existing law, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aped from the notice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefits. 8. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no controversy regarding the quantum of amount refundable. Further, there is no allegation nor any finding by the Court below with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
