TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR. J. Harish, AR For the Appellant Shri R. Rangaswamy, Consultant For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg These three appeals have been filed by the department against the impugned order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Orders-in-Original and directed the lower authority to verify the rejected refund claims on account of time bar with reference to the criteria laid down by him in the impugned order. Since the issue in all the three appeals is identical, therefore all the three departmental appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are holder of service tax registration for rendering in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 to March 2013 on 13.2.2014 as time barred cannot be accepted. The Commissioner (A) relying upon the various CESTAT s judgments has held that for the purpose of calculating limitation in respect of refund of tax paid on input service, the relevant date should be the date on which the consideration has been received where the claimant is service provider and consideration paid where the claimant is service receiver, that the relevant date is the date of receipt of inward remittances but even in determination of the last date commencing with the date of receipt of inward remittances, due regard must be to the last date of the quarter as practically unavoidability, that restrictions imposed on filing of refund claim cannot be further restrict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that another condition which the said Notification mandates is that the CENVAT credit is available for refund upon producing export proceeds realization documents. He further submitted that in terms of said Notification and the Service Tax Rules, Export of Service is said to be complete only after realization of export proceeds. He also submitted that refund should be filed once in a quarter and the export process should have been completed by way of realization of export proceeds and the documents towards export realization should be submitted to the authorities. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) have arrived at this finding after relying upon number of decisions given by the Tribunal. Here it is pertine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2014 (7) TMI 329 CESTAT, Bangalore]. Therefore, in our opinion, this decision can be followed. : In the case of Principal Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016-TIOL-1931-CESTAT-MUM] too, the Hon ble Tribunal has held that the relevant date is the date of receipt of inward remittance but even in determination of the late date commencing with the date of receipt of inward remittance, due regard must be had to be last day of the quarter as a practical unavoidability . Further in the case of CCE-I, Pune vs. SG Analytics Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016-TIOL-2028-CESTAT-MUM], the Hon ble Tribunal, Mumbai has held that restrictions imposed on filling of refund claim cannot be further restricted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
