9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-2016 - SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Goswami, Addl. Commr. (A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri Kewal Shah, C.A. ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN: These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RBT/198-199/2011 dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-IV), Mumbai Zone-I. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondent filed refund claim with the authorities for the Service Tax availed on input services which were procured for rendering output services which were exported without payment of Service Tax. The said two refund claims were rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, refund claims of Service Tax on specified taxable services used for export of goods made in quarter Mar-Jun 2008 could be filed till 31st Dec. 2008. As per Notification No. 05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, the refund is required to be filed on quarterly basis and EOU units are allowed to file the same on monthly basis i.e. EOU units are having option to file refund on monthly or quarterly basis. I find that since the appellant has filed refund claim for a quarter, the relevant date for filing refund is end of the quarter and not in accordance with that defined under sub-clause (e) of the Explanation to Section 11B (5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by the Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the sole ground for rejection of application as barred by limitation Claim in question did not fall strictly within four corners of Section 11B ibid but within four corners of Clause 6 of Appendix to notification issued under Rule 57F of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 Refund application held to be in time Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Also relying on the above judgment, I find that claim is not hit by time bar and the appellant is eligible for refund. 7. Secondly, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that input services such as Tour Operators Service, Air Travel Agency Service, food coupons (Caterers Service), Courier (Outward) service and Rent-a-cab service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
