2019 (2) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The impugned order remanding the case back to the Original Authority is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Cherian Punnose, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the Department and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for verification and passing a speaking order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing IT enab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6.10.2014 and 01.12.2014 and refund claim amount of ₹ 5,16,332/- ought to have been rejected. Thereafter, the Commissioner (A) vide impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the Department and remanded the matter. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the statutory provisions and the binding judiciary precedents. He further submitted that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B is applicable for the FIRC received for the claim period and not for the input service invoices on which credit has been availed. He further submitted that the relevant dates specified under Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that in case of refund pertaining to export of services under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, one year period is to be counted from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. This decision of the Larger Bench has been subsequently followed in various decisions cited supra. Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) has not considered the Larger Bench decision which was specifically cited before him. Further, by following the ratio of Larger Bench decision, I am of the considered view that the impugned order remanding the case back to the Original Authority is not sustainable in law therefore, I set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X