TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Service Tax, Bangalore – I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis - appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the day of the export invoice and not quarter for which the refund has been preferred. 4. The issue is no res integra . The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd [2018 TIOL-516-BANG-LB] in paragraph No. 13 has held as under: 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. 5. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. 6. Impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
