2016 (11) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial Economic Zone (SEZ) unit manufacturing and exporting windmill parts falling under Central Excise Tariff heading 8503. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 7,50,255/- for refund of service tax paid on specified service i.e. banking and other financial services, received in relation to the authorised operations in the SEZ during the period from April 2009 to March 2010 along with relevant documents on 15.2.2011 under Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009. They had also requested to condone the delay in filing refund claim on the ground that supporting documents were not available with them for filing the claim within the time limit. The original authority vide Order-in-Original No.20/2011(R) AC dated 28.6.2011 had rejected the 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

.... further submitted that as per the Notification No.9/2009 dated 3.3.2009, the refund claim should be filed within six months of payment of the service tax by the developer or a unit of SEZ and in the present case, the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed period under the said Notification and therefore, the same was rightly rejected. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order. 6. I have gone through the impugned order and it is necessary to reproduce the observations of the learned Commissioner (A) in para 4 and 5, which are reproduced herein below: "4. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and various submissions made by the appellant. The issue in this case relates ....