75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

May 2016

[2016] 67 taxmann.com 315 (Chennai CESTAT) – Tab India Granites (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai-III

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
The first date on which refund claim is filed shall be considered as date of filing of refund claim and date of subsequent re-filing/ submission of documents shall be ignored for calculating stipulated time limit.

Facts
Appellant, an exporter, filed a refund claim in January 2011 in respect of service tax paid on input services utilised for exports during the period January 2010 to March 2010. The refund claim was returned to the appellant in March 2011 with a request to submit certain additional documents. Appellant resubmitted refund claim in May 2011. Department again called for certain original documents which were submitted in November 2011. Department rejected refund claim by contending that appellant failed to file claim within stipulated time limit of one year from export.

Held
Relying upon decisions in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. vs. 1985 taxmannn.com 178 (CEGAT – New Delhi) (SB) and Rubberwood India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 2006 taxmann. com 1688 (Bang. – CESTAT), the Tribunal held that refund application was filed within stipulated period of one year as date of limitation should be taken from the original date of filing of refund claim.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2016-TIOL-702-CESTAT-MUM] M/s Dwarkadas Mantri Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

[2016] 67 taxmann.com 367 (Mumbai CESTAT) – Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mishra Engg. Works