2016 (12) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... five appeals are filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are arising out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals are regarding the refund of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant/assessee and subsequent refund thereof under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as appellant/assessee has exported the services under Business Auxiliary Services. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant/assessee on the ground of limitation as also that services are rendered to a person situated abroad in respect of the goods located in India. On an appeal, the first appellate auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. We address the issue involved in each appeal separately. Appeal No. ST/85552/15 8. In this appeal, refund application is filed for the period from October, 2007 to March, 2009. It is seen from the records that for the period October, 2007 to March, 2008, the refund application were submitted by the appellant on 31.10.2008. The said application is rejected on the ground of time bar having been filed beyond the period as stipulated Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On specific query from the Bench it was brought to our notice that FIRCs for the entire period were received from 17.10.2007 to 20.02.2008. We find that the FIRCs are rece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 09.04.2009. In our considered view, the lower authorities are correct in rejecting the refund claim as time bar as claim is filed beyond the period of one year from the date of FIRCs. In view of the above we reject appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation. Appeal No. ST/85391/15 10. In this appeal the first appellate authority in the impugned order has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue for a fresh decision. Learned Counsel submitted that they are not challenging the order to this extent. This appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Appeal No. ST/90148 & 90149/14 11. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e show cause cum demand notice, it is apparent that the same refers to the testing charges received by the respondent in convertible foreign currency in respect of services rendered by it in India to its foreign clients. Though the show cause notice refers to the circulars, what is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India, 2007 (7) S.T.R. 625 that Service Tax is a tax on each activity. When it comes to a Service Tax on professions, the services rendered are of advise and hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the nature of the tax concluded that it is rendered by a Chartered Accountant, for example when he advises his client or audits his acco....