9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , LTU, Mumbai, [2016 (8) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held the above services to be eligible for credit even post 01.04.2011. In view thereof, I hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground that input services do not have nexus with the output services is against legal principles. Time bar - Held that: - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not mention the relevant date in case of computation of time limit for refund claim filed for refund of service tax/export of services. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad Vs Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd., [2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has categorically held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein upheld the order passed by the original authority. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant Sh. Rahul Binani Ld. Consultant submitted that the refund claim was rejected mainly on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the input services like air travel agent service, outdoor catering service, interior decorating service, rent-a-cab service did not have nexus with the services exported by the appellant. Secondly, an amount of ₹ 9,50,961/- was rejected on the ground thatthe claim is time barred. He submitted that the adjudicating authority vide order dated 31.08.2010 had appropriated an amount of ₹ 4,03,800/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that when computed from the date of receiving the foreign exchange, the refund claim is within the prescribed time limit. 4. Refuting the above contentions Ld. AR Sh. Nagraj Naik submitted that credit has been rejected for the reason that the input services do not have nexus with the output services. He also submitted that as per Section 11B the time limit has to be computed from the date of the invoice/export of services and if computed in such a manner the refund claim is beyond the time limit of 1 year and therefore the authorities below have rightly denied the claim of ₹ 9,50,961/- as being time barred. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. At the outset, it is to be stated that the period involved is prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
