2019 (10) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authority initially rejected the refund without stating any reasons against which the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded the matter to the lower authority observing that the order is not a speaking one. In such de novo adjudication, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund stating that the claim is time-barred. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view taken by the refund sanctioning authority that the refund claim is time-barred. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax is made. In the present case, the invoices are dated 18.05.2016, 23.05.2016, 16.06.2016 and 30.06.2016. Therefore, the refund claim filed on 14.06.2017 has been rightly rejected on the ground of time bar. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The issue is with regard to the rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time-barred. At the outset, it has to be stated that no show-cause notice/deficiency memo was issued to the appellant stating reasons for rejecting the refund. The refund sanctioning authority in the first round of litigation has rejected the refund without stating any reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 23.03.2018, has remanded the matter directing the ....