TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarterly basis. In the present case also, the appellants are engaged in ‘export of service’ and they have received the FIRC on different dates and thereafter, they filed the refund claim and the original authority has mis-interpreted the provisions of the Notification and held that the refund claims are barred by limitation - all the three cases are remanded to the original authority for passing the de novo order regarding the refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21444/2018-SM, ST/21446/2018-SM, ST/21447/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21711-21713/2018 - Dated:- 9-11-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pallavi Sridhar, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proposing to reject the refund claim and the original authority after following the due process has rejected the refund claims on limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide common impugned order dated 22.05.2018 has remanded the matter back to the original authority without recording a finding on the grounds raised by the appellant. Aggrieved by the remand order passed by the Commissioner, the appellant has filed these three appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of remand passed by the Commissioner (A) is not sustainable in law as the same has been pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 01.03.2016. Essentially, after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (367) ITR 466 (SC) in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
