https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366911 The Commissioner (Appeals) retains power to remand a service tax matter for de novo adjudication under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the restriction on remand in Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not curtail that power. The remand order was therefore treated as valid. For quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, limitation may be computed with reference to the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, rather than the date of export service or first export invoice. The impugned order was sustained in full. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366911 The Commissioner (Appeals) retains power to remand a service tax matter for de novo adjudication under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the restriction on remand in Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not curtail that power. The remand order was therefore treated as valid. For quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, limitation may be computed with reference to the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, rather than the date of export service or first export invoice. The impugned order was sustained in full. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366911