Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Provigil Surveillance Ltd. Versus CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad-II

2017 (4) TMI 898 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund claim - denial on account that appellant had not obtained registration and in the case of refund claim for 4/2012 to 6/2012, the refund claim made on 28.06.2013 is barred by limitation - Circular issued by Registry is sufficient compliance of Rule 6(A) of CESTAT Procedure Rules or not? - Held that: - The issue whether assessee is eligible for refund for the period prior to obtaining registration is settled by the judgment in the case of the M/s m Portal India Wireless Solution Pvt. Ltd.[2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se that when computed from the date of receipt of FICR, the refund claim filed for quarter June, 2012 is fully within time. He submitted that some of the transactions would be within time. This aspect has to be verified by the adjudicating authority. - Appeal partly allowed - part matter on remand. - ST/21430/2014 - A/30513/2017 - Dated:- 23-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy for the Appellant Shri M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring the relevant period when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Bangalore, a Circular was issued by the Registry that due to scarcity of space separate appeals may be filed in one paper book. The Registry ought to have given four appeal numbers. But only single appeal number was given for the 4 set of appeals filed in one Paper Book. This is seen from the covering letter dated 28.04.2014 filed by the appellant along with appeal paper book. I therefore hold that there is no procedural i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etc. They filed refund claim on the ground that they had been exporting "Surveillance Monitoring Service" to M/s Pro-Vigil Inc., USA and the received various input services in India on such input services; but were not able to utilize the same and file refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notification 5/2006 and 27/2012. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on two grounds. Firstly, that appellant had not obtained registration. Secon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 to June, 2012 is barred by limitation in terms the Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that, the issue whether registration is pre-requisite for refund is settled by the judgment in the case of M/s. Mportal India Wireless Solution P. Ltd V/s CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (kar.)] and M/s. Spandana Spoorthy Financial Ltd., V/s CCE & ST, Hyd-IV [2016 (45) STR 265 (Tri. Hyd.)]. With regard to the issue of time bar he submitted that Rule 5 of CENVAT Credi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2012 is rejected on the ground of time bar. The appellant is supposed to file refund claim for each quarter. Therefore, the appellant has filed the refund claim at the end of the relevant quarter of April, 2012 June, 2012. If computed from the end of this quarter (30.06.2012) the refund claim dated 28.06.2013 is well within time. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of CCE, Pune-III V/s AAM Services India Pvt. Ltd., [2016 (42) STR 760 ( Tri. Mumbai)]. To argue that the Single Me .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rejection of refund on both grounds is legally unsustainable. 5. Against this, the Ld. AR, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants have obtained registration only on 09.05.2012. The refund claim is filed for the period prior to obtaining the registration. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim on this ground is right and proper. With regard to arguments put forward by Ld. Counsel regarding the rejection of refund claim on being time barred, the Ld. AR s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as time barred. He relied upon the judgment in CCE V/s GTN Engineering Ltd [2012 ELT 185) (Madras)]. 6. I have heard the submissions made before me. The issue whether assessee is eligible for refund for the period prior to obtaining registration is settled by the judgment in the case of the M/s m Portal India Wireless Solution Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and M/s Spandana Spoorthy Financial Ltd., (supra). Following the same I hold that the rejection of refund on the ground that appellant had not obtained .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version