2018 (6) TMI 1301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... listed on 16.08.2017, 10.11.2017, 06.02.2018, 17.04.2018, 15.05.2018 and this is the sixth hearing. When the matter was called out, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice being issued. I, therefore proceed to take up the matter and decide it on merits. 2. Heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein is a SEZ unit who claimed refund of service tax paid on the services used by them. Such refund is admissible as per the Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 both of which prescribe detailed procedure for claiming a refund. Among the conditions is that the claim for refund has to be filed within one year from the end of the month in whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espect of rebate claims. Therefore, the relied case laws are not teanable in the present issue." 4. Aggrieved, the appellant appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal stating "when Law requires something to be done in a particular manner, any other procedure adopted or the procedure deviated or not followed would be illegal in as much as one has proceed in the manner prescribed under Law". He further said that the conditions laid down in the notification were not fulfilled by the appellant and hence they are not entitled to the refund. In their appeal, the appellant argued that they are entitled to the refund under the notification and had approached the jurisdictional authorities to file the refund claim. However the refu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assistant Commissioner was right in rejecting the refund claim by not exercising his discretion in extending the time. The Commissioner (Appeals) also had no grounds to deviate from the orders of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim. He therefore argued that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the arguments given by the Learned Departmental Representative. 7. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim beyond the time limit indicated in the notification for the purpose. Their only argument is that it took time to collect necessary documents and file the refund claim. Whenever a notification is issued all relevant factors are consid....