https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446441 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal and set aside the refund rejection. The appellant had paid service tax to KMDA for industrial plot lease, which was later exempted under Notification 41/2016-S.T. for the period 1.6.2007 to 21.9.2016. The refund claim was rejected for being filed beyond the six-month limitation period under Section 104(3) of Finance Act, 2017. However, CESTAT held that the appellant filed the refund claim timely with KMDA, and the delay with the service tax department was due to unclear notification provisions and improper guidance. Following the Madras HC precedent in Grand Technologies case, the tribunal ruled that the limitation period was not applicable under these circumstances and allowed the refund claim. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2023 07:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446441 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal and set aside the refund rejection. The appellant had paid service tax to KMDA for industrial plot lease, which was later exempted under Notification 41/2016-S.T. for the period 1.6.2007 to 21.9.2016. The refund claim was rejected for being filed beyond the six-month limitation period under Section 104(3) of Finance Act, 2017. However, CESTAT held that the appellant filed the refund claim timely with KMDA, and the delay with the service tax department was due to unclear notification provisions and improper guidance. Following the Madras HC precedent in Grand Technologies case, the tribunal ruled that the limitation period was not applicable under these circumstances and allowed the refund claim. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446441