2016 (11) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] The appellant filed refund claim for the quarter July 2010 to September 2010 on 25.07.2011 for an amount of Rs. 29,12,096/- in respect of service tax paid on various input services in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....61/- was rejected on the ground thatthe claim is time barred. He submitted that the adjudicating authority vide order dated 31.08.2010 had appropriated an amount of Rs. 4,03,800/- against the arrears of demand/    liability on the part of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant is not challenging the said appropriation in this appeal. The details of input service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred in computing the period of limitation to hold that the claim is time barred. The authorities below have computed the period from the date of the invoice, instead of computing from the date of receipt of payment/foreign exchange. He submitted that when computed from the date of receiving the foreign exchange, the refund claim is within the prescribed time limit. 4. Refuting the above conten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es have been held to be eligible for credit during the relevant period. In a recent judgment the co-ordinate bench of the Bombay Tribunal in the case of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., [2016-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-Mum] has held the above services to be eligible for credit even post 01.04.2011. In view thereof, I hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground that input services do not have nexus wi....