Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Contata Solutions Ltd Versus C.C. & C.E. & S.T. Noida

2016 (11) TMI 582 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Rejection of refund claim - section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - time bar - Held that: - the relevant date for the purpose of Section 11B for the purpose of Refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit is not the date when service is provided but the date on which payment for service provided is received in foreign exchange. As submitted by ld. Counsel for appellant and taking the date of foreign exchange receipt into consideration in both the appeals as relevant date both the claims for refund .....

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: Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commissioner) A.R. Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar These two appeals filed by assessee have the same issue but for different periods. Therefore, they are taken up together for decision. 2. The appellant is provider of taxable service namely Information Technology Software Services and registered with the department. The appellant on 9/5/2014 filed a refund claim amounting to ₹ 4,98,117/- under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 issued under Rule 5 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t both the said Orders-in-Original claiming that the relevant dated in the instant case for the purpose of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the date of payment of duty and the refunds allowed were partly hit by limitation taking date of payment of duty as relevant date. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal arising out of said Order-in-Original No. 4/STD-I/2015-16 through Order-in-Appeal No. 275/2015-16 dated 12.10.2015 which is impugned order for Appeal No. ST/70081/2016. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

grieved by said two Order-in-Appeals the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The ground of appeal inter alia include that explanation B to said Section 11B does not specify the case of refund of accumulated Cenvat credit arising on account of exportation of output service where no service tax is payable for provision of service within taxable territory and that they have relied upon the finding by this Tribunal in the case of Hyundai Motor India Engg. (P) Ltd. reported at 2015 (39) S.T.R. 1019 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payment of Service Tax in the taxable territory. He has submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 437 (Tri.-Del.), has taken into consideration condition 6 of Notification No. 5/2006, dated 14.3.2006, Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 3 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 and held that in circumstances the date of provision of service when the recipient of such services is located outside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version