Refund claim approved after time limit clarification; lack of evidence upholds denial. Appeal decision modified.

The tribunal allowed the refund claim of &8377; 8,80,140/- previously rejected for late filing, as the time limit for filing the claim was determined to start from November 2013, not October 2013. However, the denial of &8377; 8,80,140/- for lack of Development Commissioner approval was upheld due to the absence of evidence. The appeal was disposed of with the modified decision on 20.11.2018, granting the refund of the disputed amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of input Cenvat Credit claimed by the appellant.
2. Rejection of refund application by lower authorities.
3. Interpretation of time limit for filing refund claim.
4. Compliance with the approval requirement of the Development Commissioner for services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a service provider, sought a refund of input Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The lower authority allowed a partial refund of &8377; 1,93,853/- but rejected &8377; 6,55,298/- for late filing and &8377; 8,80,140/- for lack of Development Commissioner approval.

2. The first appellate authority upheld the lower authority's decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the time limit for filing the refund claim should start from November 2013, not October 2013, citing the General Clauses Act and various case laws to support their position.

3. The tribunal analyzed the General Clauses Act and case laws presented, determining that the one-year period for filing the refund claim indeed commenced from November 2013, not October 2013. Thus, the refund application filed in October 2014 was within the specified time limit, rendering the rejection of &8377; 6,55,298/- incorrect and setting it aside.

4. Regarding the &8377; 8,80,140/- refund denial due to lack of Development Commissioner approval, the tribunal emphasized the requirement's importance under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. Since no evidence of obtaining the approval was presented, the tribunal upheld the denial of this refund amount.

5. Consequently, the tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the refund of &8377; 8,80,140/- previously denied due to the time limit issue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the decision pronounced in open court on 20.11.2018.

---