TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Bench, Bangalore. 2) The common factual matrix of all the appeals is thus: a) The respondent/assessee-M/s.Hyundai Motor India Engineering Private Limited is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) for export of computer software and ITES under the category of consulting engineering service. Its basic area of work is providing product designs, modeling and analysis in car engineering etc. The assessee entered into agreements with two car manufacturers in South Korea for providing design and analysis services. The assessee filed 13 refund claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "Excise Act") in respect of unutilized service tax paid on various input ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that relevant date for filing the refund application under Section 11B of Excise Act would be the date of receipt of consideration for services rendered and not the date when the services were provided. Thus, the CESTAT held that the refund claims were within time if the date of receipt of consideration is taken into account. b) Then as regards admissibility of CENVAT credit on construction services, CESTAT relied upon the decision of INFOSYS Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2015 (37) S.T.R. 862 (Tri.-Bang) ] wherein the definition of input services has been considered and admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of various services and the rationale to take such view has been discussed. Basing on the aforesaid judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is correct in remanding the matter with regard to the claim of refund of CENVAT credit on other services such as courier service, repair or maintenance services, telephone service, rent-a-cab service, management consultant service, chartered accountant service etc, since the said services are not having nexus with their output services i.e Consulting Engineering Service which was exported online? 7 ) POINT No.1: As stated supra, the CESTAT Bangalore, relying on the judgment in Eaton's case (1 supra), held that the relevant date for filing the refund application under Sec.11B of the Excise Act would be the date of receipt of consideration for service rendered and not the date when the services were provided. This finding of the CESTAT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai, having found the dichotomy between M/s.Affinity's case (3 supra) and Business Process Pvt. Ltd.'s case (4 supra) referred the matter to a larger Bench. The Larger Bench of CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai having noticed the decision of a Division Bench of Tribunal, Delhi in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2014 (34) S.T.R. 437 (Tri.- Del)] to the effect that the refund can be claimed after foreign exchange was received in India in respect of export of service, held that in view of the Division Bench decision and as no contrary decision was brought to its notice, no reference lies to the larger Bench. Thus in essence, the decision in Bechtel's case (6 supra) being a decision rendered by Division Bench w....