2018 (12) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No. 5/1006-CE NT, has been filed in time within limitation. 2. The appellant is an exporter of service. It appeared to Revenue that the relevant date (under section 11B of Central Excise Act) in case of export of service is the date of realisation of export proceeds, which in the instant case is 30th April, 2012 and therefore, the refund claim was barred by limitation being filed after one year. Accordingly, vide the Order-in-Original dated 29th August, 2014 the refund claim was rejected as the same was filed beyond a period of one year from the relevant date, as refund claim is to be filed within one year from the relevant date as required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with clause 6 of the said Notification No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h are eventually exported, the limitation bar has to be seen in the context of the facts of the case which suggest that in the case of export of services the period of one year is to be reckoned from the date on which the said services are presumed to be received. In the given scenario, as the date of filing of the instant refund claim is 26/27.06.2013 the same falls within one year from the date on which services are consummated. As such the said is held to be filed on time and I order for the sanctioning of refund of Rs. 3,95,485/- to the appellants. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in above terms." 5. Being aggrieved Revenue have filed the present appeal on the ground tha....