TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within time as long as they have been filed within the period of one year from the date of receipt of the consideration for the services exported. Matter on remand to decide that the nexus between the input services with the service exported as well as verification whether the claims have been filed within the period of one year from the date of receipt of consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/2305/2010-DB - Final Order No. 20238 / 2017 - Dated:- 13-2-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan Appellant is in the business of providing software engine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka raising the following substantial question of law. (a) Whether Tribunal erred in following its own interim orders, when they were yet to reach finality and the concerned appeals were still pending for final hearing (b) Whether Tribunal is right in holding that even if output service is not taxable, Cenvat credit should not be denied and refund should be granted (c) Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the refund claimed is within limitation, while ignoring the terms of Notification No.5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006 and Sec. 11(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (d) Whether Tribunal is legally wrong while holding that the assessee is eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down in an interim order. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal is strange and contrary to the settled principles of law. Passing Final Order, referring to the paragraphs in the Interim Order is not a speaking order. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, without answering the questions of law raised by the Revenue, we remand the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and to pass a speaking order assigning reasons, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Tribunal is directed to pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal in person or through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time bar under Section 11B. All the export invoices have been issued during the period March 2007 to March 2008 and the refund claims have been filed on 25.4.2008 and 22.5.2008. The claims have been rejected on the ground of time bar because they have not been filed within one year from the date of export. It has also been observed at the time of rejection of refund claims that nexus is not established between the services used and the services exported. 5. The claim of the appellant is that the software services have been exported and the input services for which CENVAT credit has been availed have in fact been used in the export of services. They have submitted further that even though the export of software service was not a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 16.5.2008. 7. The refund claims also stand rejected on the ground of time bar for failure to file the refund claim within the period of one year from the date of export of services. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd.: 2012 (28) STR 426 (Mad.) in which the Hon ble High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal where a view has been taken that for the purpose of calculating limitation in respect of claim of refund for tax paid on inputs services, the relevant date should be the date on which consideration has been received, where the claimant is service provider and consideration paid, where the claimant is service receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
