9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, filed an application for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period October, 2011 to March, 2012 of Rs. 2,48,869/- After due process of law and being satisfied with the merit in the assessee's claim, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 10.04.2013 sanctioned refund of Rs. 45,352/- and rejected the balance on the ground that the same was not eligible in terms of Notification No. 5/2006 CE (NT) dt. 14.03.2006 read with Notification No. 7/2010 CE (NT) dt. 27.02.2010. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order rejecting the refund for the invoices raised for the period October, 2011 to December, 2011, has reversed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Larger Bench (supra). 5.1 I have considered the contentions made at the bar and also gone through the findings of the Larger Bench. The relevant portion of the Larger Bench decision reads as under: "11. The definition of relevant date in Section 11B does not specifically cover the case of export of services. Hence, it is necessary to interpret the provisions constructively so as to give its meaning such that the objective of the provisions; i.e. to grant refund of unutilized Cenvat credit, is facilitated. By reference to the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as well as the successor provisions i.e. the Export of Services Rules, 2005, we note that export of services is completed only with recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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." 5.2 Going by the above, I find that the appellant's claim with regard to Sl. No. 3 in the above table satisfies the relevancy test as held by the Larger Bench and, therefore, I allow the refund claim only with regard to Sl. No. 3. Further, as the claim with regard to Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 are not pressed, no finding on these two items is given nor is considered. 6. Hence, the appeal is allowed partly on the third invoice at Sl. No. 3 in the table above, with consequential reliefs, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
