Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2016 (4) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iding Information Technology Software Services. For rendering export of services, the appellant has availed various input services and have claimed refund of service tax paid on the input services for the period July, 2011 to January, 2012 and February, 2012 to June, 2012. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Puducherry-II, rejected the five refund claims of the appellant assessee arising out of the OIO No. 26  30/2013 dated 19.03.2013, for the period July, 2011 to January, 2012, and the appellant assesse filed five appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against all the above five Order-in-Originals. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 31-35/2014 dated 23.12.2014 dismissed the appeals without going into the merits and held that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal within 88 days from the date of communication of the order. He relies on the following case laws in support of his argument: 1. Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-2006 (4) STR 99 (Tri.-Del.) 2. Subburaj Cotton Mills Vs. CCE, Madurai-2003 (160) ELT 1096 (Tri.-Chen.) 3. Sairam Engineering works Vs. CCE, Bombay-1997 (91) ELT 608 (Tri.) The Ld. Consultant also filed copies of the orders passed by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in Final Order No. 40449 - 40452/2013 dated 06.09.2013, in a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing assessee's appeals, the Tribunal has upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue appeals. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Court referring the matters to a larger bench for a decision on the question as to whether the definition of the term input in Rule 2 (g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is to be understood to include items beyond the six items mentioned specifically in Rule 2 (g). The answer to the question referred, according to us, is self-contained in the order of reference which has referred, inter alia, to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. High Land Coffee Works of P.F. X. Saldanha and Sons & Anr. - 1991 (3) SCC 617. There are other decisions of this Court by Co-ordinate Benches (three judge) on the issue which need not be adverted to specifically inasmuch as it has been clea....