TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 dated 29.10.2015 issued on 30.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Refunds, Service Tax-II, Mumbai (erstwhile) is modified and it is ordered that the refund claim for the period after 18.04.2006 be sanctioned to the appellant, M/s. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. The appeal is allowed on above terms with consequential relief." 2.1 Appellant had filed an application for refund of service tax for Rs.12,24,492/- and interest of Rs.10,49,142/- as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 17/08-ST dated 01.04.2008. After scrutiny of the refund claim, show cause notice dated 21.08.2015 was issued to the appellant seeking rejection of the refund, stating the following:- "i. The cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... w.e.f. 18.04.2006. Prior to that no service tax was payable on such services. Commissioner (Appeals) has held so. Accordingly he holds that whatever payments were made by them for the period prior to 18.04.2006 were voluntary payments and could not be independent to any other payments. It is settled law that the Revenue could not demand the amount of service tax and interest which was not leviable on the appellant. He relies upon the following decisions:- Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd. [2010 (20) STR J99 (SC)] Nestle India Ltd. [2010 (19) STR J16 (SC)] Unimark Remedies Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 31 (Guj.)] Shri Ra Knitters [2014 (35) STR 61 (P&H)] Prabhat K. Tyagi [2008 (10) STR 240 (Tri.-Bang.)] Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erse charge mechanism. When this fact was brought to their knowledge in March 2014, the said amount was paid along with interest. It was also claimed that this amount was refundable to them as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification 17/08-ST dated 01.04.2008 read with Section B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore the appellant filed this refund claim. 4.4 Original authority has rejected the refund claim holding that the refund claim is barred by limitation. The observations made in the order of the adjudicating authority are reproduced below:- "The main issue to be decided is "relevant date" applicable for deciding the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."relevant date", I do not subscribe to this view. The reasons for this is amply elucidated in above para no.8 and mainly attributed to the fact that both notifications 41/2007 (amended vide 17/2008) and 41/2012 clearly spell out the "relevant date" to be calculated from Let Export Order date only. The refund claim filed under notn. No. 17/2008 read with Section 11B, is filed beyond the specified time limit of one year. In addition, certain procedural discrepancies as detailed in (i) to (iii) under this para, above persists and the claimant, by not filing the refund claim on a quarterly basis, within sixty days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods have been exported clearly violated the clause 2(e) of Notification....