9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal authority or the appellate authority to substantiate their claim that they had undertaken construction of road work. Thus, the claim of the Appellant that they are not liable to pay Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 [Entry No.13(a)] has not been established or affirmed by any order. The Appellant cannot merely claim that they have rendered construction of roads and bridges and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. In the absence of any order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 to the Appellant, it is found that the Appellant cannot claim the refund suo moto without producing any corroborative evidence. Conclusion - The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the Appellant. However, the Appellant made a written note intimating that a decision may be taken on the basis of the submissions made by the Appellant. Accordingly, the issue is taken up for decision on the basis of the available records. 3. The facts of the case are that the Appellant has filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs.1,32,616/- vide their application dated 21.03.2016. The refund claim was rejected by the ld. adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 22.09.2017 on the ground of time-bar holding that the payment of Service Tax was made on 03.06.2014 and the refund claim was filed by the claimant on 21.03.2016, which is beyond the period of one year fixed for filing of a refund application in terms of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim filed by the Appellant was beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, he submits that the refund claim has been rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. 6. I have perused the documents on record. 7. I find that the Appellant has paid Service Tax of Rs.1,32,616/- vide Challan No. 02621 dated 03.06.2014. The contention of the Appellant is that they have rendered the service in connection with construction of bridges which is not liable to Service Tax as provided under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 [Entry No.13(a)]. 7.1. I find that the Appellant have not submitted any evidence befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
