9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Whether the relevant date for deciding the limiting period of one year under Clause 6 of Appendix to Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 for sanction of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 - Held that:- Relevant date for determining the period of limitation will be the date of export of services from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 747 - CESTAT BANGALORE) were rendered by a Single Member Bench while the judgement in the case of Bechtel India Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) has been rendered by a Division Bench. It is a settled law that reference to the Larger Bench is made only in a situation when there is a contrary view expressed by two different Benches on a g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant date for deciding the limiting period of one year under Clause 6 of Appendix to Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 for sanction of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 in the case where service is exported is (a) The date of export of service, or (b) The date of export invoice, or (c) The date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is received whether it is in part or full or advanced while in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. - 2014(34)STR 437 (Tri. Del) it was held that the relevant date for refund is the date of receipt of foreign exchange. It is also to be noted that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Affinity Express India Ltd. (supra) and Business Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
