9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within a period of one year. In these appeals, it is seen that the refund claim for different quarters has been entirely rejected by the authorities below. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that a few shipping bills may be beyond the time limit. The authorities below ought to have considered the refund claims in regard to shipping bills which are within the time limit of one year. The entire claim for a quarter cannot be rejected merely because few of the shipping bills pertaining to that quarter is beyond the period of one year. The invoices which are filed within the period of one year ought to have been considered for the different quarters - This issue is therefore required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices. When there is no dispute with regard to the services availed and the service tax paid, it is opined that rejection of refund is without any basis. The issue with regard to rejection on the ground of time-bar has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. In such de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority shall take into consideration the discussions and view expressed above by us in regard to issue of testing and analysis services and the issue of invoices mentioning the address of the Guindy unit - The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a few of the shipping bills in each claim is beyond the time limit of one year. However, majority of the shipping bills filed in the refund claim for a quarter is well within the period of one year. The authorities below have rejected the entire claim holding that the refund claim is time-barred. The claims in regard to shipping bills / invoices which are within the time limit of one year ought to have been considered by the authorities below for sanction of refund. 3. The second ground for rejection is that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions of the notification. The appellants had availed input services for testing of the raw materials as well as the finished products before export. The department has held that testing an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods have been actually exported, the refund ought not to have been denied. It is asserted by the Ld. Counsel that it is not required to establish one to one correlation with regard to input services. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs Rosy Group India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (41) STR 994 (Tri.-Mumbai) was relied to support the argument put forward in respect of technical inspection and analysis services. The said decision has also referred the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs Convergys India Pvt. Ltd.- 2009 (16) STR 198 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that there cannot be two different yardsticks, one for permitting credit and the other for eligibility for granting rebate. When there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities below ought to have considered the refund claims in regard to shipping bills which are within the time limit of one year. The entire claim for a quarter cannot be rejected merely because few of the shipping bills pertaining to that quarter is beyond the period of one year. The invoices which are filed within the period of one year ought to have been considered for the different quarters. This issue is therefore required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to look into the matter as to the shipping bills which are within the time limit of one year. Needless to say that the appellant would be eligible for refund in cases of input services with regard to the shipping bills which are filed within the period of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Department does not dispute that the appellant has received the services as per the invoices. When there is no dispute with regard to the services availed and the service tax paid, we are of the opinion that rejection of refund is without any basis. 11. From the discussions made above, we hold that the issue with regard to rejection on the ground of time-bar has to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. In such de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority shall take into consideration the discussions and view expressed above by us in regard to issue of testing and analysis services and the issue of invoices mentioning the address of the Guindy unit. In the result, the impugned orders in these appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
