2015 (11) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the tune of Rs. 1,56,83,969/- in cash and Rs. 5,28,686/- through Cenvat Credit Account. Later on, on 23.03.2009 the service recipient i.e. ICICI Bank confirmed to the appellant that they no more require their services against advance paid to them. On termination of their contract for services on 24.03.2009 the appellant filed the refund claim of service tax paid by them on the advances received from the service recipient on 31.07.2009. On 22.10.2009 the deficiency memo was issued to the appellant asking certain queries which were replied by the appellant on 30.11.2009. Thereafter, personal hearing was granted to the appellant and finally on 30.06.2011 the refund claim was rejected on the premises that: a) Refund claim is barred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. Vs. UOI-2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC). He further submits that the appellant has filed the refund claim on 31.07.2009 which was held to be barred by limitation and the Ld. Commissioner (A) has decided that the refund claim filed on 31.07.2009 is within time. Therefore, the date of refund claim is very much relevant to deciding the claim of interest of delayed refund by the appellant. He further submits that order of the Ld. Commissioner (A) holding that refund claim is filed within time has been accepted by committee of Commissioners. Therefore there is no dispute with the delay of claim of the refund. He also submits that the Department kept delaying refund claim on one premise or the other premise and sanctioned the refund claim only after f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 26.05.2011. The issue raised by the Ld. AR that firstly the point of taxation is to be decided in this matter. As it has been held by the authorities below that refund claim filed by the appellant is within time and same has been accepted by the Committee of Commissioners. Therefore, issue is point of taxation has already been decided and same is not subject matter before me. Therefore, contention of the Ld. AR that matter is to be transferred to the division bench is not acceptable. Now, I come to the issue whether appellant is entitled for interest for delayed refund. Now the factual matrix of the case it is an admitted position that while rejecting their refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority the appellant was retaining the amoun....