9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein are registered with the Service Tax for providing IT and Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The respondent assessee filed a refund claim of Rs. 4,56,924/- being the service tax paid on input service credit taken during the period October 2012 to December 2012. On adjudication, the Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax sanctioned a refund of Rs. 86,457/- and rejected the balance amount on the ground of ineligible input services and on limitation. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO to the extent of (i) rejecting part of the refund claim on the ground of Non-registration of premises (ii) rejecting part of the refund claim on the ground of limitation of time. Revenue is aggrieved by this order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority be upheld. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri M.Karthikeyan, appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee submitted that the relevant date is the date of receipt of foreign exchange and therefore the refund claim was filed well within time and cannot be held as time barred. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Delhi - 2014 (34) STR 437 (Tri.-Del.), and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CST, Goa Vs. Ratio Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 31 (Tri.- LB)., wherein it has been held that relevant date for determining the limitation period is the date of receipt of foreign exchange. Hence, he prayed that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as under :- "7. With regard to issue (i), the contention of the appellant is that under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 registration under service tax legislation is required only for service providers who are liable to pay service tax and the appellant herein is predominantly engaged in the provision of export of service and therefore they are not liable to pay service tax and consequently not required to register with the department. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ST - 2012 (27) STR 134. The Honble High Court at para-7 of its order has held as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim on limitation, it is seen that the adjudicating authority while deciding the refund claim held that refund claim pertaining to export invoices on or before 31-10-2012 were hit by time bar since the refund claim was received after one year from the date of above said export invoice and hence rejected as ineligible credit. But, Commissioner (Appeals) dealt the limitation issue in depth and passed a detailed order and held that inasmuch as the refund is related to Cenvat credit taken during the given period and the same shall be taken till the last day of the given period, namely the quarter, the claim for refund can only be filed after the last date of the respective quarter and the relevant date is the date of export and are entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bangalore - 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.). The ruling of CCE Vs Sutham Nylocots - 2014 (306) ELT 255,relied upon by the Revenue, is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as it was a case of classification/clandestine removal and credit based on registration is not a prescribed condition in terms of the exemption notification would not automatically entitle CENVAT Credit. Since, the ruling of the Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case and that the ruling of the Karnataka High Court is more akin to the facts of the present case, the refund of CENVAT Credit on renting of immovable property is allowed, follow the ruling of the Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, I pass the following orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
