9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of tax - Held that:- Certificates have been corrected by the collecting bank and therefore, this objection would no longer be sustainable. However, the correct certificates were not available before the lower authorities when they rejected the claim and, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the refund sanctioning authority for consideration of the revised FIRCs now obtained by the assessee-appellant from the collecting bank and after considering the same, refund shall be granted to the appellant as per law. In any case, the department has not objected to the assessee-respondent taking the credit at the relevant time and the objection has been raised only at the time of filing of the refund claims. There cannot be two different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 4 ST/85278/2014 July 2008 to September 2008 43,40,291/- 5 ST/85344/2014 November 2007 75,24,552/- 6 ST/86018/2014 October 2008 to December 2008 13,39,242/- 7 ST/86017/2014 January 2009 to March 2009 46,18,967/- 8 ST/86016/2014 July 2008 to September 2008 1,66,80,020/- 2. The Miscellaneous Applications have been filed for submission of revised FIRCs involved in the impugned orders and since they are relevant to the proceedings for consideration, they are admitted. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee-appellant submits that the refund claims amounting to ₹ 1.02 crore approximately was rejected by the lower appellate authority only on the ground that the foreign inward remittance certificates (FIRCs) produced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the word "in" has been substituted by the word "for". Therefore, this objection no longer remains. The learned counsel also points out that even prior to the amendment, the CBEC vide circular dated 19/01/2010, had clarified that the exporters would be eligible for refund of the input service credit even if they are used for the export of the services and in the subsequent circular dated 26/02/2010 this position has been further reiterated. Therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue is no longer sustainable and accordingly he pleads for dismissing the Revenue's appeals and upholding the refund already sanctioned to the assessee-respondent. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that there cannot be two yardsticks, one for allowing the input credit and another for refund of the credit taken. The Tribunal observed in the said case that there cannot be two different yardsticks; one for permitting the credit and the other eligibility for granting credit. Whatever credit has been permitted to be taken, the same are permitted to be utilized and it is not possible to have two provisions, one for grant of refund or as rebate. Without questioning the credit taken, the eligibility to refund cannot be questioned. The above ratio squarely applied to the facts of the present case. On this ground also the appeals filed by the Revenue fails and sanction of refund to the assessee-respondent cannot be disputed. 7. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
