9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005. The Notification was issued under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Revenues claim has been rejected on the ground that it is time barred in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 that the claim should have been made separately for the two registered premises in the absence of centralized registration whereas the claim has been preferred by the appellant were not registered under the jurisdiction of service tax jurisdiction, Bangalore; the export invoices do not contain the details of services provided, the classification and prior declaration about export of taxable service has not been provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service rules reads as under: "Rebate of Service tax: 5. Where any taxable service is exported, the Central Government may, by Notification, grant rebate of service tax paid on such taxable service or service tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be, used in providing such taxable service and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the Notification." It can be seen that both the Rules are pari materia except for substitution of taxable service in place of goods. Therefore I consider that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras would apply to the facts of this case as regards limitation. 4. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut services have been used or not. In any case, the service exported is not liable to tax. Therefore as claimed by the appellants, certain omissions in terms of Rule4A of Service Tax Rules could not come in the way of sanction of rebate in respect of input services if the appellant is able to show that there is an output service and the same has been exported. 7. As regards prior declaration, the claim has been rejected on the ground that no separate declarations were filed in respect of two registered premises. On this issue I have already held that a consolidated ST-3 returns in respect of two registered premises should be acceptable. 8. The next issue is nexus between input services and the services exported. 9. Another ground is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
