9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they filed the refund claim on 28.04.2017 which is very well within the time period i.e. 1 year before 30.06.2017 - the issue is squarely covered in favor of the appellant by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it has been held that for the purpose of refund, relevant date for the purpose of dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax Department for providing services of Consulting Engineering Services and Manpower Recruitment Services. They filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 on 28.04.2017 for a refund of ₹ 2,10,311/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Eleven on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Central Excise, Coimbatore V. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 185 (Mad.). 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submitted that the appellate authority has followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on a quarterly basis. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in this case the appellants have received the FIRC during the month of April 2016 and they filed the refund claim on 28.04.2017 which is very well within the time period i.e. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
