TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 - Held that:- Claims under notification No. 12/2005-ST also are required to be considered as per the provisions of Section 11B, made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. In this case the claim is for rebate of duty paid on services utilized in export of services and it is similar to rebate claim which are granted under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, in which case, the time limit u/s 11B would be applicable - Decided against the assessee. - ST/193-194 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2012 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. For Appellant : Shri Manuchai Patel, Chartered Accountant For Respondent : Shri S.K. Mall Shri Rajendra Nagar, ARs Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; In both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR would rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro BPO Solutions Limited. I find that in Wipro BPO Solutions Limited case, the Tribunal had taken the view that if declaration has not been filed at all or filed after completion of export, authority sanctioning rebate would have no opportunity to verify likelyhood of evasion of duty. In that case exporter cannot ask sanctioning authority to verify receipt of inputs from records. Purpose of filing declaration is to prevent evasion of duty by receipt of rebate . Making this observation, Tribunal took a view that even though non filing of declaration is only procedural, rebate will not be admissible. Since the decision of the Tribunal is in relation to rebate claim filed under n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim is not correct. Even though it may not be necessary to consider other submissions because of the view taken as regards declaration, yet I consider that it would be appropriate to deal with the other submissions also since considerable time was spent. As regards the time limit under Section 11B, the learned Chartered Accountant relied upon the decision in the case of Rangdhara Polymers 2010-TIOL-518-CESTAT-AHM to submit that limitation under Section 11B is not applicable to the refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004. However, learned AR submitted that in the decision in the case of GTN Engineers (I) Limited on 25.8.2011, while deciding the matter in Appeal Nos. 2182 to 2187 of 2011, the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original claim was made under Notification No. 12/2005-ST and the notification issued under Rule 5 has different conditions and for different purposes altogether. Further, as pointed out by the learned AR that in Notification No. 12/2005-ST, according to condition 2(e), the refund claim has a condition that no cenvat credit has been availed on input services on which rebate has been claimed. This would show that Notification 12/2005 has to come into play when no cenvat credit has been taken, whereas the question of refund of accumulated credit arises when cenvat credit has been taken. Both are opposite to each other and it would not be appropriate to accept the submission that the claim be considered as having been filed under Rule 5 of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
