2018 (12) TMI 1538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re both the 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 services i.e., Online Information and Data, Business Support Services, Development and Supply of Content service and Information Technology Software Services and they filed refunds of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 and Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012. Appellants have filed two refund claims for the periods from January 2010 to March 2010 and April 2010 to September 2010 for Rs. 12,494/- and Rs. 1,81,565/- respectively. The two claims were reject....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Period Amount Sanctioned Amount rejected 1. No.23/2017 (Refund) dt.15.12.2017 Jan. 2010 - March 2010 & April - Sep. 2010 Rs.31,343/- Rs.1,62,716/- 2. No.24/2017 (Refund) dt.21.12.2017 Oct. 2011 to June 2014 Rs.6,111/- Rs.3,05,306 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.3.2017. He further submitted that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act will not apply and he mainly relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. KVR Construction reported in 2010-TIOL-89-HC. 5. On the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed o....