9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quarter April to June, 2012 there is no question of refund getting time bar. The respondent is correctly entitle for the refund of ₹ 30,56,748/- but the total turnover and export turnover applied by the Adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals) was wrong - appeal allowed partly in favor of appellant. - ST/87737/14 ST/CO/91098/15 - A/87750-87751/16/SMB - Dated:- 26-5-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. R.K. Das, Dy. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate with Shri. Abhijit Singh, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER This Revenue s appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-368-13-14 dated 21/2/2014 passed by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim would be ₹ 14,14,71,070/-( ₹ 22,70,67,212/- minus ₹ 8,55,96,142/-) as per this position the refund claim was calculated as under: 14,14,71,070/- x 30,17,233/- = 18,79,845/- 22,70,67,212/- Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was allowed on the ground that value of ₹ 8,55,96,142/- is export turnover of April 2012 to June, 2012 quarter therefore the same should be added in not only for total turnover but also for export turnover and accordingly the refund was calculated as under: 22,70,67,212/- x 30,56,746/- = 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Shri. Mihir Deshmukh, Ld. Counsel submits that the refund related to Invoice No. INV/03/2012 dated 6/4/2012 was already claimed and the same has been granted for the quarter January to March, 2012 for the reason that this invoice dated 6/4/2012 is related to the services exported during March 2012 as invoice raised in the subsequent month. He submits that for this reason value of this invoice should neither be taken in total turnover as well as export turnover for the period April to June, 2012 accordingly entire refund ₹ 30,56,748/- is admissible therefore the refund of ₹ 11,76,903/- allowed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is correct. As regard the time bar, he submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be made as mentioned by me above. I find that it is admitted fact that services related to invoice dated 6/4/2012 was already considered as export of service in the quarter January to March, 2012, therefore the same can neither be taken in total turnover nor in export turnover for the period April to June, 2012. 6.1 As regard the time bar, since the respondent has not claimed the refund related to invoice dated 6/4/2012 in the quarter April to June, 2012 there is no question of refund getting time bar. 6.2 In view of the above, the respondent is correctly entitle for the refund of ₹ 30,56,748/- but the total turnover and export turnover applied by the Adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
