2019 (10) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected claim for refund of Rs. 56,27,388/- on the ground that condition (b) in paragraph no. 3 of notification no. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June 2012 and of Rs. 10,57,754/- for having been sought after the period of limitation prescribed therein. Explaining the background, Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the claim pertained to rebate of taxes discharged on services procured for the construction of MV Arina Samurai in their yard and export thereafter. The original claim of Rs. 1,10,36,124/-, filed on 19th August 2015, had been re-filed on 1st September 2015 to include an enhancement of Rs. 10,57,754/-. The original authority had limited the sanction to Rs. 48,72,342/- while rejecting the balance and the appeal thereon, having modifie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aining to limitation, cited on behalf of appellant, were either in the context of applications that were revised upon deficiencies being pointed out by the sanctioning authority or had the effect of diminishing the claim originally preferred. 4. We find that the Tribunal in, re Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, has laid down the principle that '12. The Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. has been issued in terms of Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification provides for grant of rebate by way of refund of the service tax paid on the specified services used for export of goods. It is nobody's case that the GTA services for which the appellant has claimed rebate of service tax under the notification has not been used for export ....