9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Since filed the refund claim after one year from the date of payment of service tax, the same is hit by limitation. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also considered in detail, the submission of the appellant in as much as they claimed that they being a member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) should get the benefit of the Calcutta Club Limited case as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) was one of the party in that case. On going through the finding of the impugned order carefully, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. The refund of the appellant is clearly hit by limitation in terms of the Section 11B of the Central Excise Rule, 1994. Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 10104 of 2021 with Service Tax Appeal No 10490-10496 of 2021 - Final Order No. A/11027-11034/2022 - Dated:- 29-8-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. Bishan R. Shah, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri. J A Patel, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the respondent ORDER These appeals have been filed by the appellant M/s. GUJARAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CGST-VI/Ref-09/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020- 21 Dated 12.06.2020. 2012-13 27.01.2020 1042129 ST/10491/2021 4. CGST-VI/Ref-10/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020-21 Dated 12.06.2020. 2013-14 27.01.2020 1797886 ST/10492/2021 5. CGST-VI/Ref-11/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020- 21 Dated 12.06.2020. 2014-15 27.01.2020 1568492 ST/10493/2021 6. CGST-VI/Ref-12/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020- 21 Dated 12.06.2020. 2015-16 27.01.2020 1528904 ST/10494/2021 7. CGST-VI/Ref-13/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020- 21 Dated 12.06.2020. 2016-17 27.01.2020 2058967 ST/10495/2021 8. CGST-VI/Ref-14/GCCI/DC/DRS/2020- 21 Dated 12.06.2020. April-2017 to June-17 27.01.2020 655193 ST/10496/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Rule 6(3) of the Cervat Credit Rules, 2004 is required to be followed. Being aggrieved by the Orders-In-Original the appellant preferred the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellant, therefore, the present appeals filed by the appellant. 2. Shri. Bishan R. Shah, Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund claim in the present case was filed in pursuance of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Culcutta Club Limited. The refund arises only after the said Apex Court judgment, therefore, the relevant period starts from the date of the Supreme Court judgments only. The appellant have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of judgments, therefore, the Lower Authorities have wrongly rejected the claim on the ground of time bar. He submits that in the case of Culcutta Club Limited, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) was one of the party and present appellant being a member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI), the refund arises out of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (S.C.)-Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India. Ajni Interiors Vs. Union of India I Other (S) in Special Civil application No. 10435 of 2018 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. In the present case the fact is not under dispute that the appellant have admittedly paid the service tax on the service of Club or Association and same was not challenged by them at any point of time. They filed refund claims on 27.01.2020 for the period from 2010-2011 to 2017- 2018 (April to June-2017), therefore, the claim of the appellant was filed after one year limit which is prescribed under Section 11B. As regard, the submission of the appellant that they being a member of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry ( FICCI) was one of the party in the Culcutta Club Limited case, the period of limitation should start from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We find that all the parties in the Culcutta Club Limited was litigating their own case and not on behalf of their members, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was anywhere c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
