Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (4) TMI 329

s very much necessary for appellants to have this service - the rejection of refund on Car Parking Charges is unjustified. - Other issues requires verification by the refund sanctioning authority - Appeal is thus partly allowed and partly remanded. - ST/42367/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40631/2019 - 3-4-2019 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant Shri R. Viswanathan, Cons. For the Respondent Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are providing Consulting Engineering and Information Technology Software Service. They filed refund claim for ₹ 8,54,696/- for the period Apr. 15 to Mar. 16 on 21.01.2017 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit. After .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

er the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Span Infotech, the relevant date for considering the limitation is the date of FIRC for Export of Services. The FIRC statement reconciliation is furnished by the appellant. Further that the appellant had received some amount as advance and this was not considered for the total export turnover. Thereafter, the said advance was adjusted to the charges of the services. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the authorities below. The rejection alleging that part of the refund claim is time-barred is only due to erroneous approach taken by the authorities below. (iv) An amount of ₹ 2,41,781/- has been rejected as stated in para 12 (c) of Order .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

d on facts which require verification by the department. It is, therefore, necessary to remand the matter to the refund sanctioning authority. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The first issue is with regard to the non-refund of credit with respect to Car Parking Charges. It is not disputed that the appellants have availed the said charges for car parking facilities within their premises. It is very much necessary for appellants to have this service. Therefore, I find that the rejection of refund on Car Parking Charges is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. 6. On going through the other grounds for rejection of refund, as rightly pointed out by learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, I find that most of the issue r .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||