TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3,41,228/- Rejected 5. ST/41345/2017 April 2014 to June 2014 Rs.1,57,993/- Partly allowed 2. The appellant filed refund claims under Notification No. 40/2012- ST dated 20.6.2012 [superseded by Notification No. 12/2013-ST, dated 01/07/2013] for the services rendered to SEZ. The entire refund claims were rejected by the learned adjudicating authority on the ground of time-bar. The eligibility of refund claims is based on the guidelines provided, stipulations given in the said notification. The appellants preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Commissioner vide the impugned orders partially rejected the claims and partially remanded the matter back to the learned adjudicating authority. Hence these appeals. 3. Shri S. Venkatachalam, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned Advocate stated that they have filed refund claims for service tax suffered on the specified services used for the authorized operations of the SEZ. [The same has been tabulated at para 1 above.] The Ld. Counsel stated that they have claimed the refund after la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the show cause notice. Further there is no provision in the said Notification to the effect that payment has to be made within the relevant quarter. Incidentally, the appellants have made all the payments to the service providers and the bank statement proof was given in respect of the serial numbers mentioned in the order-in-original. In the subsequent order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed to the said position. Further with regard to the time limit for filing the claim, in Clause 3(iii)(e) of the Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 it is clearly mentioned as "or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as the case may by, shall permit". Therefore, the averment in the impugned order that the appellants have violated the conditions mentioned in the show cause notice is not sustainable in as much as the Notification itself allows extension of period beyond one year. Further it is to be noted that the appellants are SEZ and hence entitled for exemption. The Ld. Advocate relied on the following decision in support of his contentions. i. Shree Royal Polyplast Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for this. 11. I find that in para 14 of the impugned order, respondent has denied the refund of Rs.6214/- for invoices on which no STC available. The appellant during the time of personal hearing has provided the STC of the service provider. This issue is also remanded back to the respondent for reverification. Needless to say that personal hearing may be given to the appellant to explain his case/present the documents. (emphasis added) Further in OIA No. 113, 114 & 115/2017(STA-I), dated 17/03/2017 at para 7 has held as under; However, the appellant has averred that the refund claim for the period Apr'2014 to Jun'2014 was filed on 18.05.2015, hence for the period May'2014 and Jun'2014 there was no delay but the respondent had rejected the refund in full as time barred. I find merit in their contention. It is observed that the respondent ought to have taken this aspect into consideration as the appellant is eligible for refund on this count for the period May 2014 and Jun 2014 with consequential relief, if any. The impugned Order-in-Original No.36/2016 (Refund Cell), dated 27.04.2016 is set aside to that extent. I find that the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons. introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal.' 8. I also find that in OIO's No. 11/2016 and 12/2016 both dated 03/03/2016 and 36/216 dated 27/06/2016 passed by the Original Authority there has been a breach of natural justice as orders were passed without a notice and a personal hearing. Those appeals merit to be remanded on this ground alone. However, the matter is taken up on merits so as to avoid further delay. 9. From the admission made by the appellant it is clear that there is some negligence on their part. The question is whether the degree of negligence is so high as to close the door of refund on the assessee- appellant, especially when the law permits that the normal period of filing a refund claim can be extended by the appropriate authority. To take a view that failure to comply with the time limit would result in dismissal of t....