GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 949 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2015 (12) TMI 949 - CESTAT BANGALORE - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 757 (Tri. - Bang.) - Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) - whether the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of one year - Held that:- Tribunal has clearly held that the date of receipt of consideration is relevant for calculating relevant date and the limitation wou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TAKA HIGH COURT ] of Hon’ble High Court relied upon, this was considered in Apotex case [2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE] by the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/514/2011-SM - Final Order No. A/20734/2015 - Dated:- 16-3-2015 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri S. Ananthan, CA, for the Appellant. Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is an STPI unit and periodically filed refund claims in respect of inputs services used for providing o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)] and therefore the impugned order has to be set aside and the refund claim has to be allowed. Alternatively, he would submit that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Apotext Research Pvt. Ltd. and Others [Interim Order No. 79 to 152/2014 dated 12-9-2014] reported in 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG to submit that the date of receipt of consideration has to be taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent to 17-11-2007 in the order portion, he has given the date as 16-5-2008 and this also requires to be corrected. 4. Learned AR would support the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the submissions. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has clearly held that the assessee is eligible for refund for the period of one year prior to the date of filing the refund claim. In the order portion also, he has held that the claim is hit by limitation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version