Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bangalore Versus M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt. Ltd.

100% EOU - Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR read with N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012 - Time bar - Held that: - the relevant period of one year starts from the end of the quarter for which the export realization has taken place - the refund claims are filed in respect of exports pertaining to quarter January 2013 to March 2013 on 13.2.2014 - refund claim filed within the relevant period of one year - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/21811, 21813 & 21814/2016-SM - Fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 information technology IT enabled input services. Respondent is a 100% EOU registered with the Software Technology Park of India. Respondent have filed the following refund claims shown .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 to June 2013 2.1 Thereafter show-cause notices were issued to the appellant for various discrepancies found in the claims. The original authority had partially rejected the refund claims on the ground that the claims filed are after one year from the date of export and hence the claims were considered as time barred. Aggrieved by the said orders of the adjudicating authority, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (A). The appellate authority held that the refund claims a .....

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 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 restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs and therefore the last date of the quarter in which the FIRC were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Finance Act, 1994, the claim of refund shall be filed with the jurisdictional AC/DC before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The relevant date as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 means one year from the date of export of service/date of raising the first export invoice in that particular quarter. He further submitted that the refund claim for the period January 2013 to March 2013 on 13.2.2014 was filed beyond the prescribed time limit as per Section 11B and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tted 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise Act, 1944 as has been made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994, and accordingly the original authority has rejected the time-barred portion of the claims. The appellant has contended that taking the relevant date from the date of export invoice is not in consonance with the Tribunal s judgments passed in this regard. The Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of M/s. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & 55 Others vs. CC, Bangalore [2015 (3)346 CESTAT, Bangalore] has held that after considering t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2014 (7)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 .....

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