2018 (5) TMI 1671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondents ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The appellant has filed this appeal against impugned order dt. 06/10/2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on limitation. 2.  Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are wholly owned subsidiary company of Gain Span Corporation, USA and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the Orders-in-Original and dismissed the appeals being hit by limitation under Section 1 1B, Hence the present appeal. 3.  Heard both sides and perused records. 4.  The learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case it is the export of services. He also cited few decisions in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that the relevant date for computation of time limit is the date of receipt of consideration and not the date of invoice. Since there were divergent views on this issue by various Benches of this Tribunal, a Larger Bench was constituted on a reference made by a Hon'ble Single Memb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt date is the date on which the services are exported i.e. the date of first export invoice during the claim period. Further he submitted that the High Court of Madras in the case of GTN Engineering (l) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2012(281) ETL 185 (Mad.)] has held that though there is no specific relevant date is prescribed in the notification, the relevant date must be the date on which the final products ar....