2016 (4) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uxiliary Service (BAS) and Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and these services are exported out of India. The appellants filed applications for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.5/2006 CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2008 for the month of July 2010 to October 2010 and November 2010 to December 2010 for refund of the accumulated credit of Service Tax paid on various input services. A show-cause notice was served upon the appellants proposing to deny the refund claims. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claims mainly on four grounds. Firstly that the services exported are not taxable services. Secondly that refund claims are time-barred. Thirdly that there is no one-to-one ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at even if the services are not taxable, the refund should have been allowed. He drew support from the judgments laid in mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. CST, Bangalore - 2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR-ST and in KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I - 2013-TIOL-931-CESTAT-MUM. He submitted that the authorities below have erred in holding that the refund claims are hit by limitation. The original authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals) has computed the period of one year from the date of providing the service. He contended that as services are exported, the relevant date applicable would be the receipt of FICR or at least the filing of ST3 returns and not the date of providing service. If the period of one year ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he gamut of activities rendered by the appellant would fall under the taxable category of ITSS. It is seen from the impugned order that after such discussion and holding that such services exported by appellant would fall under the category of ITSS which is taxable w.e.f. 16/05/2008, the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issue of taxability and to allow the refund if otherwise found eligible. As rightly pointed out by the learned consultant appearing for the appellant, the Commissioner(Appeals) has no powers to remand the matter. Therefore the order of remand passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) is unsustainable. As regards the issue whether the refund claim can be rejected for the reaso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Engg. (P) Ltd. [2015(39) STR 984 (AP)], the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the relevant date would be the date of receipt of consideration(FICR). In the present case, if the period of one year is computed from the date of receipt of the FICR, the refund claims would be within the time limit Following the ratio laid in the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hyundai Motor India Engg. (P) Ltd.(supra) and also in the case of Market Tools Research (P) Ltd. (supra), I find that the refund claims are not time-barred. 8. The other ground on which the refund claim was denied is that there is no one-to-one correlation between the inward remittances and the services exported. There is no dis....