9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim has been filed in the month of October, 2018. Admittedly Central Goods Service Tax Act was introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2017 replacing the erstwhile existing Act and Rules. Section 142(5) of the new Act makes the assessee eligible to file refund claim and to get the refund of the amount of service tax paid by them in cash notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said provision expressly prescribed that the limitation provided in sub-section (1) of Section 11B is not applicable. The authorities below did not pay much attention to the documents placed on record by the appellants and they had merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Orders dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, C.Ex. Customs, Nagpur by which the learned Commissioner vide separate orders rejected the appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are identical therefore I am disposing them by this common order. 3. The issue involved herein is whether the refund of excess service tax paid by the appellants can be denied to them on the ground of limitation when the limitation period has expired after the introduction of CGST Act? 4. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeals are stated in brief as under:- (i) The Appellant- Maloo Enterprise (Appeal No. ST/86907/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 16,93,021/- and Rs.5,47,891/- respectively in terms of Section 11B(1) ibid r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of non-filing of relevant documents in support of their claim of excess payment and also on the ground of time bar. The Adjudicating Authority vide two separate Orders-in- Original dated 11.1.2019 rejected both refund claims on the ground of non-production of relevant documents and also on the ground of limitation. The said orders were upheld by the 1st Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals) vide two separate Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.3.2019 by rejecting the appeals filed by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are eligible for refund in terms of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and the authorities mainly concentrated on the issue of time bar as laid down under Section 11B ibid. The excess payment has been made by the appellants in the month of August, 2017 for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017 and the refund claim has been filed in the month of October, 2018. Admittedly Central Goods Service Tax Act was introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2017 replacing the erstwhile existing Act and Rules. Section 142(5) of the new Act makes the assessee eligible to file refund claim and to get the refund of the amount of service tax paid by them in cash notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
