9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quarter January, 2016 to March, 2016 on 31.3.2017 - Held that:- The relevant date from the date of receipt of FIRC is on 14.3.2016 - The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f service under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 for an amount of ₹ 6,44,924/- for the quarter January, 2016 to March, 2016 on 31.3.2017. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim, whereas, on an appeal filed by the Revenue, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal observing that the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Taking note of the relevant Notification, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal analyzing the case has observed as follows: - "13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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."
7. Following the aforesaid ratio, I do not find merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
