Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (1) TMI 237 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2017 (1) TMI 237 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Refund of unutilized credit - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) - Time Bar - Held that: - The period has been computed by the authorites below, from the date of export of services instead of computing the time from the date of receipt of foreign currency or the date of invoices - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CCE, ST, Hyderabad Vs M/s Hyundai Motor India Engg (P) Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH .....

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? - Held that: - reliance placed in the decision of the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - non-registration of premises is not sufficient ground for rejection of refund. Appellant is eligible for refund of claim. - Appeal allowed - matter on remand. - ST/28207, 28208 & 28210/2013 - A/31324-31326/2016 - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Ms. Sulekha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion for refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The details of the period involved, the amount of refund claimed, and the reason for rejection as put forward by the appellant is shown in the table below: Appeal No. Party Period Claim Amount (Rs.) Rejected in O-I-O Rejected in O-I-A Issue in dispute Before CESTAT Remarks ST/28207/2013 Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8208/2013 Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. Jan 12 to Mar 12 29,39,224 OIO No. 51/2013 ST Group III Refund dt. 26.03.2013 Rejected: ₹ 29,39,224 OIA No. 102/2013-(H-IV) S.Tax dt. 25.07.2013 Rejected: ₹ 15,77,698 out of total claim Rejection on the ground that Appellant has not obtained separate registration for the new premises and nor has it included the said premises to obtain central registration, in case of maintenance of centralized billing or accounting. ST/28210/2013 Deloit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Hon ble CESTAT Bangalore Bench has remanded back to original authority for verification. Denovo proceeding is under process. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. S. Tirumalai submitted that in appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the refund has been rejected on the ground that the claim is hit by limitation. He submitted that the authorities below had computed the period from the date of export of services and thus held that the refund claim is time barred. The Ld. Counsel su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respect of invoice dates. In regard to Appeal No. ST/28208 the Ld. Counsel submitted that the issue of refund claim of ₹ 13,61,526/- was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the adjudicating authority for verification in relation to FIRCs and export invoices. That the said amount is not under issue in the present appeal. That the refund in respect of ₹ 15,77,698/- was rejected on the ground that the invoices were issued in the name of appellants office at Meenakshi Tech Park wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n is not mandatory condition for availing credit, he submitted that the appellant is not eligible to avail credit on the invoices issued to the un-registered premises at Meenakshi Tech Park. He relied upon the decision in M/s Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Vs CCE, Mangalore [2013 (30) STR 475 (Tri.-Bang)] and argued that if the appellant had more than one premise the appellant ought to have taken ISD registration and taken the credits availed by the different units. 5. I have heard both .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service the relevant date is the relevant date of invoices and not the date of export services. In the appellant s own case the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 26.06.2013 has remanded the matter for reconsideration of the issue after verification of the date of export invoices. In view thereof, I hold that appeal ST/28207 and ST/28210/2013 can be remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue of limitation after taking into account the date of export invoices and also follow .....

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