TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport of service the relevant date is the relevant date of invoices and not the date of export services - matter remanded to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue of limitation after taking into account the date of export invoices. Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of credit of service tax paid on various services which were availed on invoices issued to the premises which were not included in the registration certificate? - 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 sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2013-ST (GR-IV) dt. 27.03.2013 Rejected: ₹ 46,46,571 OIA No. 103/2013 (H-IV) S.Tax dt. 24.07.2013 Rejected: ₹ 12,44,540 for invoice dt. 07.01.2012 out of total claim Rejection of refund claim on the ground that it is hit by limitation pertaining to Export Invoice No. DAERS/EY12/2008 dt. 07.01.2012 and thus time barred Refund Granted vide OIO No. 110/2015 (Range-iv) Div-I Refund Order dt. 27.10.2016 for the period April 08-Dec 13 ST/28208/2013 Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. Jan 12 to Mar 12 29,39,224 OIO No. 51/2013 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted 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 submitted that in the case of export services the period prescribed for filing refund claim has to be computed from the date of invoice/ date of receipt of foreign currency and if computed in this manner, the refund claims are within time. He also relied upon the judgment laid in the appellants own case wherein the Tribunal had remanded the matter vide Final Order No. 25497/2013 dated 26.06.2013: Tribunal in the said Final Order had remanded the matter for verification and computation of period in respect of invoice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the authorities below have held that the refund claims are time barred. 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. In the case of CCE, ST, Hyderabad Vs M/s Hyundai Motor India Engg (P) Ltd., [2015 (39) STR 984 (A.P)] the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana has held that in the export of 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. Following the said decisions, I hold that the non-registration of premises is not sufficient ground for rejection of refund. In view thereof, I hold that appellant is eligible for refund of claim. It is to be noted that the department does not have a case that the input services are not otherwise eligible for credit. 7. In the result, the appeal no. ST/28208/2013 is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. The other two appeals ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 are allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced dictated in open court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
