9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of software publishing, consultancy and software maintenance and are registered for provision of "ITSS" and "BSS"; the appellants having rendered services to overseas entities filed various claims, for refund/ rebate of CENVAT credit, in terms of Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012; a Show Cause Notice dated 05.12.2018 was issued to the appellants seeking to reject the refund claims; the Original Authority vide Order dated 22.10.2019 rejected the refund claims for a total of Rs.16,49,23,648/- on the grounds that the refund claims are time barred and that the appellants are not entitled to refund of CENVAT credit as they have provided only intermediary services; on an appeal preferred by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relies on the following cases: * Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-l versus Arya Exports and Industries 2005(192) E.L.T. 89-Delhi High Court * Repro India Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur 2016 (43) S.T.R. 203-CESTAT Mumbai * UM Cables Limited versus Union of India 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) * Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. versus Union of India 2016 (341) E.L.T. 44 (All.) * M/s Heg Limited verus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 730 (Tri. -Del.) * Suzuki Motorcycle (1) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-Ill, Gurgaon 2018 (2) TMI 133-CESTAT Chandigarh * Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-VI 2015 (315) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. -Kolkata) * M/s C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner‟s order is liable to be set aside. On the merits of the case, he submits that the original authority has given reasoned findings for holding that the appellants have rendered only "Intermediary Service". 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Brief issues that require to be considered in the instant case are as to whether the applications for refund filed by the appellants are barred by limitation under Notification No.27/2012 and as to whether the appellants were supplying merely "Intermediary Services" and thus, are not eligible for refund claims. We find that the appellants have filed the refund claims in time; however, they did not enclose the BRC certificates; the reasons submitted for not fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11B of the Act of 1944 is concerned, no doubt that the golden principle of interpretation, at the first instance, is always required to be applied while interpreting a statute, but in relation to the provision in question it would be appropriate to notice that it mentions the 'date relevant' and further that a claim application can be filed by placing relevant documents along with it, as such, the provision is not conveying the simple meaning, as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents want to put forth. 6. Coming to the issue whether the services provided by the appellant fall under "Intermediary Services", we find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any findings on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
