TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three appeals have been filed by the appellant against common impugned order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Orders-in-Original and rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are registered under the category of Management Consultant Service and Business Support Service . They filed applications claiming rebate of service tax paid on the output services exported in terms of Notification No.11/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 read with Export of Service Rules, 2005, which are given below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 or 30.10.2010 or 31.10.2010 whereas export invoices were all issued between the periods ranging from 25th June 2009 to 27 th November 2009. Therefore, in terms of statutory provisions laid down in Section 11B, the claims are clearly time barred as they have been filed beyond the time period laid down in Section 11B. Further, the Commissioner (A) has also observed that it is true that the claims were filed within one year from the date of receipt of remittances against the export invoices. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has filed these three appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the rebate claims on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be complete in case of export of services when the service has been provided to the offshore client and the payment for the service has been received and accordingly the date on which the payment has been received has to be treated as the relevant date for the purpose of counting limitation period Rule 3(2) of Export of Service Rules, 2005. He further submitted that the time limit for rebate of export of service should be computed from the date of receipt of consideration and not from the date of export invoice as held in the case of Alar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and in the present case, the date of receipt of FIRCs in respect of export invoices are very much within the period of one year. Learned counsel also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
