9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate claim of the appellant for the period April 2006 to 3rd March 2007 on the ground of time bar and the claim for the remaining period i.e. for 28 days, the claim has been found to be within limitation but the same has also been rejected on the ground that the appellant have not submitted relevant GAR challans. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing certain sales support and has classified the service as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. During the period from April 2006 to March 2007, the appellant has exported BAS to its group entities located outside India. There is no dispute about the appellant's services classifying as export of service under Export of Service Rules, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also without considering the various decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court on the same issue. He further submitted that Notification No.11/2005 is self-contained code to deal with rebate claims filed by the appellant and the said Notification does not prescribe any time limit for filing of the rebate claim and hence imposing of any time limit which is not envisaged under the Notification is not permitted under the law. Alternatively, he further submitted that the rebate be considered as refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same can be granted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court, keeping in mind that any input and output taxes embedded in exported services should be refunded. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not filed quarterly rebate claims as is required under Notification No.27/2012-CE dt. 18/06/2012 and therefore the claim filed by the appellant on the yearly basis is not maintainable and is time-barred. 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, there is no dispute regarding the appellant's services qualified as export of service under Export of Service Rules, 2005. We also find that in the present case, the appellant had paid the service tax on exported output services and subsequently filed rebate claim under Notification No.11/2005-CE(NT) dt. 19/04/2005 which is a self-contained code to deal with the claim filed by the appellant. Further we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is not tenable in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Western Cans P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-I [2011(270) ELT 101 (Tri. Mumbai)] wherein in para 8, the Division Bench has held as under:- 8. To deal with the first issue, we have gone through the Notification 5/2006 dated 14-3-2006 wherein it is provided that the refund claim can be submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year. From the perusal of the provisions, we find that the intent of the legislature was that the assessee should not file refund claim on day to day basis or weekly or invoice-wise. To avoid multiplicity of the refund claim this provision was made, therefore, it is suggested that refund claim can be filed on quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
