TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Successful appeal grants refund on extended time-limit; rejection overturned, denial deemed unnecessary.</h1> <h3>JVMD APPARELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., FARIDABAD</h3> JVMD APPARELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., FARIDABAD - 2017 (4) G. S. T. L. 237 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues:1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.2. Refund claim for the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-6-2008 filed on 30-6-2009 as time-barred.3. Rejection of refund claim of &8377; 43,285/- as time-barred.4. Extension of time-limit for filing refund claim under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.5. Denial of refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- for not providing copy of agreement for services.6. Requirement of invoices issued by a foreign agent for availing services for refund claim.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-6-2008, which was submitted on 30-6-2009 and deemed time-barred. The refund claim amounting to &8377; 43,285/- was rejected by the lower authority as time-barred. However, it was found that the claim was filed within the one-year period provided for filing the refund claim. The time-limit was extended to one year as per CBEC Circular under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 7-7-2009. Consequently, the claim was held not barred by limitation, and the rejection was overturned.2. The refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- was also contested on the grounds of not providing a copy of the agreement for services. The appellant was denied the claim based on this reason. However, it was clarified that as per the notification in question, the invoices issued by a foreign agent for availing the services were sufficient documents to support the refund claim. Therefore, the denial of the refund claim on the basis of not producing the agreement was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.3. In the absence of representation from the appellant or any request for adjournment, the matter was taken up for disposal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal highlighted that the rejection of the refund claim of &8377; 43,285/- as time-barred was unfounded as it fell within the extended time-limit of one year. Additionally, the denial of the refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- for lack of agreement copy was deemed incorrect, as invoices from the foreign agent sufficed as supporting documents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted relief as per the judgment pronounced in court.
TaxTMI 