9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER Per: S.S GARG These three appeals have been filed by the appellant against common impugned order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Orders-in-Original and rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are registered under the category of "Management Consultant Service" and "Business Support Service". They filed applications claiming rebate of service tax paid on the output services exported in terms of Notification No.11/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 read with Export of Service Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11B. Further, the Commissioner (A) has also observed that it is true that the claims were filed within one year from the date of receipt of remittances against the export invoices. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has filed these three appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the rebate claims on the ground of limitation in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 11B and also against the binding judicial decisions. He took me through the provisions of Section 11B and submitted that it is clear from Section 11B which does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Rules, 2005." He further submitted that the time limit for rebate of export of service should be computed from the date of receipt of consideration and not from the date of export invoice as held in the case of Alar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and in the present case, the date of receipt of FIRCs in respect of export invoices are very much within the period of one year. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions: * Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-Bang. * Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015-TIOL-739-HC-AP-ST * CCE Vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd.: 2011-TIOL-166-CESTAT-MUM. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
