9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - Dated:- 20-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the appellant Shri Sreenivas.K.P., CA For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in providing output services under the category of Information Technology Software Services to their clients outside the country and are availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services utilized in providing the output service. The assessee has filed refund claim for the period October 2009 to March 2010 for & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order allowing the refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the provisions of Section 11B which were made applicable to service tax under Section 73 of Finance Act, wherein it has been provided that the refund claim should have been filed within one year from the date of export. As such, the refund claim for the said period i.e., from October 2009 to March 2010 is hit by time limit. Learned AR also relied on the decision in the case CCE vs. GTN Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.) wherein it has been observed by the Madras High Court that though there is no specific relevant date prescribed in the Notification, the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of export of goods but the same analogy may not be applicable in respect of the relevant date for the purpose of refund. The liability to pay tax or the duty arises in the case of manufactured goods as soon as they are manufactured whereas in the case of service tax till the law was amended, only when the consideration was received, the liability to pay tax arises. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CST vs. Prodair Air Products India (P) Ltd.: [(2016) 71 taxmann.com 358] wherein it has been held that Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) requires refund application to be supported by a copy of the invoices as well as the certificate from the bank certifying realization of remittance. Hence, the relevant date is receipt of input remi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
