Page 223 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 693
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
have intentionally decided to claim duty drawback and forego IGST
refund - Before issuing final directions, Department directed to verify
extent of duty drawback availed by exporter and duty drawback/Cenvat
credit component in exports — TMA International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ... 22
— IGST on exports - Exporters would not voluntarily opt for drawback
claim under Column A of Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) at cost of
foregoing IGST paid on exports - Where duty drawback rates under
Columns A and B were same, exporters would receive drawback amount
even if they mentioned “B” in their shipping bills instead of “A” for
claiming drawback — TMA International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ........ 22
— Limitation - Condonation of delay of two days in filing refund application
seeking refund of Service Tax paid during period 1-4-2015 to 28-3-2016
under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. as amended by Notification No.
9/2016-S.T., dated 1-3-2016 - Aforesaid notification requiring filing of
refund application within six months from date of Finance Bill, 2016
receiving assent of President - Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge
limitation period provided under a notification which required to be
strictly interpreted - Delay in filing refund application not condonable -
Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide
Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 — Zaigham Enterprises v. Commissioner of Cus., C.
Ex. & S.T., Noida (Tri. - All.) ............................... 401
— Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Exemption relating to long
term lease of industrial plots under Section 104(1) of Finance Act, 2017 -
Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of President on 31-3-2017, thus the
refund claim, ought to have been filed on or before 30-9-2017 - Refund
claim was filed on 16-11-2017 - Service Tax on development charges was
collected by SIPCOT, who is service provider - Thus only after getting
information from SIPCOT that SIPCOT has deposited the Service Tax
with the Department and also getting details of such deposit in the
nature of tax paid challan, the appellant can file the refund - Essential for
appellant to get information from SIPCOT as to eligibility of the refund -
Person who can make the refund claim having not been specified in
Section 104 ibid, the plea put forward by appellants that they were
unable to make claim before 30-9-2017 is not without substance -
Appellants were not in a position to file refund claim due to delay caused
by SIPCOT - Thus delay caused by SIPCOT in informing the appellants
has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation - Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of
Finance Act, 1994 — Teknomec v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai (Tri.
- Chennai) ....................................... 135
— Limitation - Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service provided to
(i) Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India; and (ii)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) - Assessee pleading
limitation period under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944,
inapplicable as Service Tax amount paid by mistake liable to be treated as
deposit with Government - HELD : Refund claim preferred by assessee in
terms of provisions of impugned Section 11B ibid, hence it cannot be said

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  223