9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. Against the impugned order No. PK/294 to 308/ME/2017 dated 30.11.2017, Revenue has filed 15 numbers of appeals, which were listed as Appeal Nos. 88698, 88701, 88714, 88708, 88695, 88717, 88684, 88700, 88670, 88716, 88713, 88690, 88671, 88673, 86573/2018. In respect of the impugned order No. PK/287-293/ME/2017 dated 30.11.2017, 5 numbers of appeals were also filed by Revenue, listed as Appeal Nos. 88676, 88674, 86611, 88688, 88691/2018. All the above referred 20 appeals are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed. 2.1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the business of providing taxable service under the category of "Banking and other Financial Services", defined under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent is registered with the service tax department for providing such taxable service. During the period between July 2012 and March 2016, the respondent had filed 15 numbers of refund applications, claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services, which were used/utilized for providing the output service exported by them. The refund applications were filed by the respondent under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case records, including the written note of submissions filed by both sides. 4. The following findings are recorded in respect of the above referred 15 numbers of appeals filed by Revenue against the impugned order No. PK/294 to 308/ME/2017 dated 30.11.2017: 4.1. The amount involved in Appeal No. ST/88698/2018 is Rs. 14,03,208/-, which is below the monitory limit fixed by the Government under the litigation policy. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable and as such, is dismissed under the litigation policy. 4.2. Both sides agree that in respect of Appeal Nos. 88690, 88671, 88673 and 86573/2018, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue entirely in favour of the Revenue. Considering the submissions, we are of the view that the said appeals filed by Revenue are infructuous and accordingly, are dismissed. 4.3. In respect of other 10 numbers of appeals, the stand taken in the grounds of appeal by Revenue is that placing reliance on Notification No. 14/2016-C.E.(N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper inasmuch as the same is not clarificatory in nature and will have prospective effect and cannot be appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yundai Motors (I) Engineering (P) Ltd., 2017 (49) STR 385 (A.P.) and the Tribunal vide Order No. A/85150-85151/2018 dated 29.01.2018 in the case of M/s. Morgan Stanley India Service Pvt. Ltd., holding that the period of limitation of one year should be computed from the date of FIRC. 4.3.2. With regard to the submissions of Revenue that the Notification No. 14/2016-C.E. (N.T.) is prospective in nature and the benefit provided there-under is not applicable to the claims filed prior to such date, it is the settle principle of law that the beneficial amendment to the statute should be given effect to retrospectively. Considering the constitutional bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. - (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) on the issue, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that the relevant date should be considered as the end of the quarter, in which the FIRC is received. The other ground urged by Revenue to the effect that tax appeal in the case of Spec India has been admitted by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we find that Revenue has not brought on any eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th proof of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent had complied with the conditions and the procedures laid down under the said notification. With regard to the period of limitation for filing of rebate claim, the issue is no longer res integra in view of Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Though, the judgments were delivered in context with refund of service tax under Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.) dated 18.06.2012, but the concept of relevant date considered therein should equally be applicable to the case of rebate claims. Thus, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by Revenue with regard to the issue of limitation for filing of the rebate claims. 5.4. FEMA Regulations and notifications issued there under recognised the receipt of consideration for exports in Indian currency (INR) from the overseas bank account as receipt of foreign exchange. It is for this reason that the authorized dealer i.e. the receiving branch issues the FIRC, eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
