2014 (3) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The reasons for causing the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order are that the appellant filed composite appeal but they were required to file three appeals as the impugned order contained three Order-in-Original. As the main appeal has been filed in time, and consequently on pointing out by the Registry, they filed these appeals, therefore delay is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant are service provider of consulting engineering service which ultimately exported by them. To provide the said service, the appellant used certain input service. After export of services for the period September 2004 to August 2005, the appellant filed rebate claim of the input service received by them as per N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f service and as per Notification 12/05 export is complete when the remuneration of the exported service have been received in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, the date of which they received the remuneration towards the services exported is to be the date of providing the service. To support this contention, he relied on CCE vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. 2011 (22) STR 223. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the consultant and submits that the condition of the Notification are to be complied with. He also submits that the date when the services are exported and invoice have been issued for the same, therefore same may be treated as date of export. Accordingly, their some of the rebate claim are barred by limita....