TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Heading 8503 and are also registered with Central Excise and also holds Service Tax registration. Appellant filed refund claim of service tax of Rs. 39,46,171/- in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013 in respect of service tax paid during the period from July 2014 to September 2014. The refund claim was filed on 30/06/2015. Thereafter a show-cause notice dt. 29/09/2015 was issued proposing to deny refund of Rs. 30,16,293/-. After due process, the Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 29/04/2016 rejected the refund claim of Rs. 30,14,429/-. Appeal against the Order-in-Original was rejected by the impugned order. The details of the nature of service provided and refund amount claimed are given herein below:- Name of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 1001/6543564 dt. 01/04/2014, the payment was made on 12/04/2014. Further in respect of worksheet No.25 in relation to 'UV Capital', Banking or Financial Services was provided during 2012. The service provider raised invoice on 04/07/2012 and subsequently on 9th, 10th and 11th July, the appellant paid the tax in respect of said invoice. Further there was a delay in receipt of the said invoice. They received the invoice in January 2015 and the appellant has accounted the same in their books of accounts. Further in respect of worksheet No.39 in relation to Bank of Baroda, banking and other financial services were provided. However, there was a delay in receipt of the bank statement and in respect of worksheet no.40,43 & 45, port se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve. A distinction between the provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built-in with certain specific objectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other must be kept clearly distinguished. 4.2. He further submitted that in respect of their own appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-APP-HAD-086-2014 dt. 19/08/2014, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal and condoned the delay therein. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CC(Prev.) Vs. M. Ambalal & CO. [2010(26) ELT 487 (SC)], wherein in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd claim is that the appellant has not produced required documents and further the reasons for the delay in the application seeking condonation are not convincing. Further I find that in the Notification No. 12/2013, discretion is given to the Assistant Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing the refund application. Further, I find that the appellants have given reasons for seeking condonation but the same have not been considered by the authorities below and the reasons for delay are beyond the control of the appellant and further in the case of ICICI Lombard Insurance, there is only a delay of 2 months and 20 days. Similarly with regard to banking and financial service provider, the delay occurred on account of the reasons beyond ....