Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 584 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - credit was wrongly availed on the invoices issued to the Hyderabad office of the assessee - Hyderabad office does not find place in registration certificate - Held that:- considering that there is no dispute about the receipt of services by the respondent and the utilisation thereof being permissible even without registration under Finance Act, 1994, the rejection of invoices raised on an address that is not included in the registration certificate would not sustain. The respondent, as an exporter of goods, is privileged to exclude the tax/duty element from the export price. In these circumstances, the settled law of lack of registration not being an impediment for utilisation of CENVAT credit finds equal acceptance in allowing the refund of CENVAT credit relating to the tax paid on inputs/input services. Period of limitation - computation of one year from the date of FIRCs would render it beyond the period of one year specified in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - relevant date is the last day of the relevant quarter of receipt of FIRCs instead of the dates on which the FIRCs had been issued is not in accordance with the notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18th June 2012 - Held that:- the settled law relating to the date of issue of FIRCs being acceptable for compliance to the procedure laid down in notification no. 27/2012-CE(NT). The restrictions imposed on filing of refund claim cannot be further restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs. Accordingly, there is no flaw in the findings of the first appellate authority that last date of quarter in which the FIRCs were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period within which the refund should be sought. - Decided against the Revenue
|