2016 (12) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....puty Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeal is filed by the appellant against the rejection of refund claim.  2.  The appellants are registered for providing services and is registered with the department.  They filed refund applications of service tax amounts which have been paid on specified services received by them under the Notification No. 17/201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) the refund sanctioning authority vide Order-in-Original No. 19/2013 dated 31.05.2013 allowed the refund claim for periods other than January, 2011 and February, 2011.  In the said order there was an observation by the original authority that the Commissioner (Appeals) having already held that the refund claim for the months January, 2011 and February, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l argued that the Notification No. 17/2011 has come into effect super ceding Notification No. 9/2009 dated 03.03.2009.  That therefore, the appellant has rightly filed the refund claim under Notification No. 17/2011-ST, dated 01.03.2011 and therefore 6 months time prescribed in Notification No. 9/2009 not applicable to them.  The Ld. Counsel also contended that the adjudicating authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No. 9/2009. 6.  I have heard both sides.  It has to be noted that in the Show Cause Notice there is no allegation raised that the refund claims are filed beyond time limit.  Be that as it may, the original authority has given a clear cut finding in para 11 of Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2012 that the refund claims are filed within the time limit.  This being ....