9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant notification published on 19.4.2005. Delay made due to managerial approval. Held that – filing of declaration complied within reasonable period and such filing before export not mandatory. Impugned order holding rebate as admissible, upheld. - 35 of 2010(O&M) and 17038-C-II of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2010 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. [Order per: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.]. - C.M. No. 17038-Cu of 2010: C.M. is allowed. Substantial question of law are taken on record. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act ) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er care services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary Services under the provisions relating to levy of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. It claimed credit for input services in accordance with Notification No.12/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005. Claim of the assessee for the rebate was for the period from 19.4.2005 to 30.4.2005 and 1.5.2005 to 31.5.2005. On that basis, refund was also claimed. The original authority rejected the claim of the assessee but the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the plea of the assessee which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The Tribunal held that Rule 5 of the Export Service Rules, 2005 provides for rebate of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitting that they had to consider various options and to obtain the management's approval and as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Mangalore Fertilizers Chemicals v. Deputy Commissioner 1991(55) ELT 437, the procedural requirement could be condoned for valid reasons particularly when the rebate extended was a new benefit. This view was upheld by the Tribunal. It was held that the declaration was filed on 9.5.2005 though rebate claim related to period from 19.4.2005 to 31.5.2005. 7. As regards judgments relied upon by learned counsel, we find that the same are distinguishable. In the present case, condition of filing declaration was duly complied within reasonable period. Filing of declaration before export co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
