9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing conversion services of e-books to electronic files / publishing services etc. falling under Business Auxiliary Services. They filed refund claim for different periods under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT). After due process of law, the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoice instead of the date of remittance of foreign exchange to compute the period of one year. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services (I) P. Ltd. - 2017 (42) STR 188 and argued that the Tribunal in the said case had held that the relevant date in the case of export of services would be the date of receipt of foreign exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of foreign exchange as well as the invoices pertaining to the service provided. That the refund cannot be rejected on the ground that FIRCs were not produced; being procedural lapse the same may be condoned. In respect of fifth issue of non-production of FIRCs, as shown in the Table above, he submitted that the appellant has now received the FIRCs with respect to various transactions and would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of export of services, the relevant date is the date of receipt of foreign remittance. Following the same, we hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 7. Refund in respect of Issues 2, 3 and 4, as shown in the Table, has been rejected for the reason that the appellant has not been able to produce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
