9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax department under the category of "Banking and other Financial Services". They filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification NO. 5/2006 dated 14/06/2006 and Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19/04/2005. The department while scrutinising the said refund claims had allegedly found some discrepancies that were communicated to the appellant through show cause notice or deficiency memo etc. After hearing the appellant, the refund claims were disposed off. Refund claims for the period July, 2008 to March, 2010 (in all four) were totally rejected on merits. Refund claims for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 (one) was partly sanctioned and partly rejected on merits. Refund claims for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts being received. He would then draw our attention to the CENVAT credit register maintained by the appellant and submit that most of the service liability stands debited in the account on 29/06/2012. It is also his submission that the findings of the appellate as well as the adjudicating authorities are contrary to the factual position. 6. The learned Departmental Representative would submit that the amounts which have been indicated by the appellant as received in foreign exchange is not tallying with the amount which has been billed by the appellant for the services rendered. He would also draw our attention to the fact, that the ST-3 returns do not indicate as to the gross amount having been received in advance and it is not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first appellate authority for rejecting this claim was that it was filed on 29/06/2012, whereas the invoice was raised on 30/06/2012 and cannot be correlated. Invoice can be raised on any date but the debit of the amount towards service tax liability was on the date when the rebate claims were filed. On a specific query from the bench, as to the certificate of foreign inward remittance not tallying with the amount indicated in the ST-3 returns, the learned counsel would submit that he would file the invoices and the correct reconciliation. It was filed by the appellant on 16/01/2015. On perusal of the said reconciliation and the documents like FIRCs and the invoices raised by the appellant, we find that the entire amount, which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
