9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Adjudicating Authority - matter on remand. Whether the claim of ₹ 18,58,545/- is eligible as Input Services being used in the export of finished goods? - Held that: - these services viz., Rent a Cab Services, Catering Service (Canteen), Mobile/Telephone Service, Courier Service, Advertising and Marketing Service, Professional Service, Banking Service- HP Finance Service are held to be Input Service - reliance placed in the case of M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise And Service Tax, Noida [2015 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that - the credit availed on the service tax paid in relation to these Input Services are admissible. Appeal allowed - part matter decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of remittance towards the said export of services and not on the date of export of the services. In support, the Ld Chartered Accountant referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of BECHTEL India P Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi - 2014(34)STR.437 (Tri. Del), K K S K Leather Processors(P) Ltd Vs CCE ST, Salem - 2014(35)STR.956 (Tri Chennai), Clearpoint Learning Systems (I) P Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-III - 2015(37) STR. 149 (Tri Mum). With regard to the refund claim of ₹ 18,58,545/- which was rejected on the ground that the services viz., Rent a Cab Services, Catering Service (Canteen), Mobile/Telephone Service, Courier Service, Advertising and Marketing Service, Professional Service, Banking Service (HP Finance Service) are not elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012(281)ELT.185 (Mad), CCE, Ranchi Vs Gilloram Gaurishankar - 2015(326) ELT.654 (Jhar), Alembic Glass India Ltd Vs UOI - 1992(60)ELT.64(Guj.). 6. I find that in the present appeal, the two issues are to be decided are : i) whether the refund claim of ₹ 6,04,051/- is barred by limitation and, ii) claim of ₹ 18,58,545/- is eligible as 'Input Services' being used in the export of finished goods. The Ld Advocate for the appellant firstly argued that the time limit prescribed under Notification 5/2006-CE(NT), issued under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 is not applicable to cash refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit, and alternatively he has argued that the period of limitation in the present case be computed from the date of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of service is complete only when foreign exchange is received in India as per Export of Service Rules, 2005 (i). In the Section 11B, relevant date for refund of export of goods is date of export. Section 11B is made applicable for claiming refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as per condition 6 of Notification 5/2006. In case of export of Services, export is complete only when foreign exchange is received in India. Therefore relevant date of export of services is date of receipt of foreign exchange. In the present case all the four claims have been filed within 1 year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange and are therefore filed in time and cannot be held as time barred. 8. From the records, it is not clear when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
