2018 (4) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (A.R.) for Appellant Shri Udyan Chokshi, Advocate for respondent   These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he sanctioned the refund of Rs. 18,04,189/- and Rs. 36,33,985/-. The said refund claims were filed by the respondent in terms of the Notification NO. 12/2013-S.T. dt. 1.7.2013. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g on behalf of the Revenue submits that since the refund is under Notification No. 12/2013-S.T., all the conditions laid down in the notification should be followed. As regard limitation for filing the refund there is a statutory provision under clause (e) of sub-clause (iii) of para 3 of the Notification, according to which, the refund claim should be filed within 1 year from the end of the month....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2016-TIOL-1931-CESTAT-MUM (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides I find that the refund claims filed by the respondent under Notification No. 12/2013-ST wherein as regard limitation there specific clauses (e) and (f) in the notification which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... above clause it is provided that the refund under the notification should be filed within 1 year from the end of the month in which the actual payment of service tax is made by SEZ unit to the service provider. However as per clause (f) it is provided that the refund claim to be filed only once for a quarter. From the perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Learned Commissioner has not tou....