2018 (11) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (A). Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable service falling under the category of 'Management or Business Consultancy Service' to their customers located outside India. The appellant filed refund claims for the various quarters under Notification No. 27/2012-C.EX dated 16.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and Service Tax Rules, 1994. The details of the claims are given here in below: SI. No. Claim period Claim amount Date of filing 1. January'16 to March'16 Rs.1,43,124/- 16.03.2017 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund claim. In support of her submission, she also relied upon the decision of Larger Bench in the case of CCE Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2018(12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB) wherein the Larger Bench has held that the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the judgment of the Larger Bench cited supra, I find that this issue is no more Ras integra and has bee....