9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred? - Held that: - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore – I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Section 11B needs to be calculated from the day of the export invoice and not quarter for which the refund has been preferred. 4. The issue is no res integra. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore - I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd [2018-TIOL-516-BANG-LB] in paragraph No. 13 has held as under: "13. Revenue has expressed the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis." 5. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. 6. Impugned order is upheld and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
