2015 (9) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rejected the claim to the tune of Rs. 9,99,531/- holding that amount to be time barred. The appellants have contended that they had filed the refund claim electronically on 5.7.2012 and reckoned from that date the entire amount was within the limitation period of one year. They stated that the adjudicating authority has reckoned the date of filing the refund as 29.11.2012 when they submitted the necessary documents in response to a query by the department. The appellants have put forth the following contentions in support of their claim. I. They referred to trade notice No. 14/ST/2009-ST dated 17/9/2009 issued by Commissioner of Service Tax (Del) wherein it was stated that using the ACES the user will be able to take registration on line ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s online and that is what was done by the appellants. They only submitted the documents subsequently. I have perused the electronic submission made by the appellants on 5.7.2012. The application contains all the details including the amount of refund claimed and the details of challans under which the service tax was deposited and even the grounds for refund were mentioned in the application. I find that in a similar situation in the case of M/s NCS Pearson India Private Ltd. Vs. C.C & C.E & S.T, Noida, Tribunal by its Final Order No. 58499-58500/2013 dated 01.12.2013 held as under:- "The issue involved in these appeals is whether the claims filed by the appellants are time barred or not. It is contention of the appellants that refund clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling in proper form and with documents is not to be considered as actual date of filing. In the light of the analysis above, it is held that in the present case the date of filing the refund claim electronically, which is 5.7.2012, is to be taken as the date of filing the refund claim and with reference to that date the impugned amount rejected is not barred by time. 3. Thus while the impugned rejection is not sustainable, in passing I would like to add that regarding the other ground taken by the appellants that what was paid was not service tax and therefore the time limit of one year prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable, suffice to say that the creatures of the Central Excise Act (CESTAT incl....