M\/s Sucden India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai South
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 718 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 11-1-2019
APPEAL NO. ST\/86033\/2018 – A\/85053\/2019
Service Tax
SHRI S K MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri Anand Desai, C.A. for Appellant
\nShri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S K Mohanty
\nThe issue involved in this appeal relates to the time limit within which the refund application has to be filed under the statute. In this case, the appellant had filed the refund application under Notification No. 41\/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012, claiming refund of Service Tax paid on the input services, used for export of the output service. The refund application was filed on 21.04.2016. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 24.08.2016, wherein the refund claim was favourably considered by the original adjudicating authority. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, Revenue had filed appeal befo<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ice Tax Department was closed. He further submitted that on 20.04.2016, the signed refund application was received from Delhi office and as per the directions of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the refund application together with the supporting documents were filed before the department on 21.04.2016. Thus, the Learned Consultant submitted that delay in filing of refund application should be condoned in the interest of justice. In support of his stand that delay in filing of refund application can be condoned in the circumstances of the case, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Tarapada Dey and Others – AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 2195 and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rama Aba Singale and Others Vs. Sumitrabai and Another – AIR 1979 BOMBAY 14 and Pratapsing Ganpatrao Kadam Vs. Maruti Raghunath Todkar – AIR 2003 BOMBAY 11, also the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the ca<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ). In addition, the Learned DR also relied on the recent decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Veer Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula [2018- TIOL-1432-CESTAT-CHD-LB]. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n late filing of the refund application. In context with adherence of the prescribed time limit for entertaining the refund application, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Limited (supra) have endorsed the views expressed by the Tribunal that the customs authorities acting under the Act were justified in disallowing the claim of refund, as they were bound by the period of limitation provided under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (pari materia to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944). Further, in the case of Daoba Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have also held that if the proceedings have been taken under the Central Excise Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in such Act alone will prevail with regard to applicability of the time limit for filing the refund claim application. In this case, since the appeal of Revenue was allowed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation, holding<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Sucden India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai SouthService Tax2019 (1) TMI 718 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 11-1-2019APPEAL NO. ST\/86033\/2018 – A\/85053\/2019Service TaxSHRI S K MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Anand Desai, C.A. for Appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: S K Mohanty The issue involved in … Continue reading “M\/s Sucden India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai South”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides and perused the case records.
\n5. In this case, the appellant had filed the refund application, claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services. The refund application was filed under notification no. 41\/2012 ST dated 29.06.2012. Filing of refund application is governed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The statute provides that the refund application should be filed with the competent authority before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. In view of date of issue of LEO, the refund application was required to be filed on or before 14.04.2016. The appellant contended that it had tried to file refund claims online<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n