9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The appellant has filed this appeal against impugned order dt. 06/10/2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on limitation. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are wholly owned subsidiary company of Gain Span Corporation, USA and are service providers under the category of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the Orders-in-Original and dismissed the appeals being hit by limitation under Section 1 1B, Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the factual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d few decisions in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that the relevant date for computation of time limit is the date of receipt of consideration and not the date of invoice. Since there were divergent views on this issue by various Benches of this Tribunal, a Larger Bench was constituted on a reference made by a Hon'ble Single Member Bench and the Larger Bench in the case of CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted i.e. the date of first export invoice during the claim period. Further he submitted that the High Court of Madras in the case of GTN Engineering (l) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012(281) ETL 185 (Mad.)] has held that though there is no specific relevant date is prescribed in the notification, the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export, if any other conclusion is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
