TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals on refund claims remanded for review based on clarified refund claim date.</h1> <h3>Svb India Advisors Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I</h3> Svb India Advisors Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-I - TMI Issues:Appeals against dismissal of refund claims on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. Background: The appellants, service providers under 'Management Consultant Services,' filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit for specific periods. The claims were rejected on limitation grounds under Section 11B by the original authority and Commissioner(Appeals), leading to the present appeals.2. Legal Arguments: The appellant's consultant argued that the impugned order lacked consideration of factual and legal aspects. He contested the Commissioner(Appeals)' reliance on a judgment related to export of goods, emphasizing that the present case involved export of services. Citing conflicting views on the relevant date for time limit computation, reference was made to a Larger Bench decision in CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which clarified the end of the quarter as the relevant date for refund claims filed quarterly.3. Revenue's Defense: The Revenue defended the impugned orders, asserting that the relevant date for refund claims should be the date of first export invoice during the claim period. Referring to a Madras High Court judgment, it argued that any other conclusion would hinder refund claims, emphasizing the date of export of goods as the relevant date.4. Decision: Considering the Larger Bench's clarification on the relevant date for computing the one-year period, the judge decided to remand all four appeals back to the original authority for disposal based on the Larger Bench's decision. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, aligning with the Larger Bench's ruling on the relevant date for refund claim consideration.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, conflicting views, and the ultimate decision to remand the appeals based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench regarding the relevant date for computing the time limit for refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
TaxTMI 