9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority on the ground of limitation, the Appellant cannot take the stand that the same refund should be granted to them without any time limit on the ground that Section 11B is not applicable to them, as has been done by them in their second Refund Claim. As the refund claim is specifically covered by the Clauses of Section 102(3) of the Finance Bill 2016, and was rejected once, the Appellant s attempt to get the same refund under a general category by concealing the facts is illegal - there are no merits in the Appeal filed by the Appellant and the same is dismissed. These facts show that the Appellant has concealed the facts before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, trying to mislead them which migh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative submits that in respect of the Refund Claim filed on 21/11/2016 for Rs.15,85,089/- , the same was rejected vide OIO No.1/ST/REFUND/AGT/ACA/2017 dated 31/1/2017. The Appellant did not prefer any Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue as to whether the refund claim was filed on or before the 14/11/2016 or on 21/11/2016 pertains to the proceedings taken up in this OIO dated 31/1/2017. No further Appeals were preferred by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore this issue of filing date of refund claim has no relevance to the present Appeal before the Tribunal. He also points out to the Recording of PH given in the OIO dated 31/01/2017 where the Appellant has admitted that they could not file the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent of the President. The relevant portion is extracted below:- 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for the claim of refund of service tax shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President. (emphasis supplied) 5. The President s assent to the Finance Bill was received on 15/5/2016. Hence the Refund Claim was required to be filed on or before 14/11/2016. When the statute itself specifies the time limit for such refund claims, which is six months in this case, if the same is filed after six months, the same cannot be entertained by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has correctly rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter knowing fully well that their case was covered under the Refund falling under Section 102 (3) of the Finance Bill, 2016, still they have made attempt to get his amount as a general refund. Their submission today that the first refund claim was filed by them by way of Speed Post on 08/11/2016 is not backed up by proper evidence, is made for the first time and goes against their own PH recording before the Adjudicating Authority in the OIO dated 31/1/2017, which is reproduced below:- 1. That Smt. Bebi Poddar w/o Sri Shekhar Chandra Poddar is a diabetic patient. During the last week of October, 2016 her sugar level in blood was very high and was not in control and therefore Shri Shekhar Chandra Poddar took his wife to Kolkata and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
