9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an amount paid by them as service tax on the services exported under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Business Support Services' to an entity in Germany and Yugoslavia. Appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 73,03,154/- on 04.01.2011 in an appropriate form. Asst. Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise, Pune I Commissionerate by a speaking order sanctioned the rebate of Rs. 49,73,683/- and rejected the rebate claim of Rs. 23,29,471/- on the ground that this rebate claim is hit by limitation as consideration for this bill was received by the appellant by a FIRC dated 18.12.2009 and the refund claim should have been filed before 18.12.2010 while the refund claim was filed with the department on 04.01.2011. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), insofar as it relates to export of taxable services to the countries other than Nepal and Bhutan, the Central Government hereby directs that there shall be granted rebate of the whole of the service tax and cess paid on all taxable" services exported in terms of rule 3 of the said rules, to any country other than Nepal and Bhutan, subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures specified hereinafter, - 2. Conditions and limitations :_ (a) that the taxable service has been exported in terms of rule 3 of the said rules and payment for export of such taxable service has been received in India in convertible foreign exchange; (b) that the service tax and cess, rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of service tax on the taxable services exported. 4.2 Secondly, we find that similar issue came up before this Bench in the case of Vodofone Cellular Ltd. 2014-TIOL-319-CESTAT-MUM wherein the issue of time limit of filing refund claim under the very same Notification was before the Bench and it was held that if the refund claim are filed beyond the period of one year from the date of payment of service tax, the refund claim are liable to be rejected, which would in turn would support the view as proposed by the appellant before us. 4.3 In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order which upholds the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 23,29,471/- is incorrect and the appellants appeal needs to be allowed and we do so. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
