TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner(Appeals) disposed of all the three appeals filed before him by a common order, all the rebate claims are being disposed by this order. The details of three rebate claims are given below:- Period Date of filing refund claim Refund claim amount (Rs.) April 2005 to May 2005 22/12/2005 20,39,720/- June 2005 to September 2005 31/05/2006 40,42,173/- October 2005 to March 2006 12/10/2007 66,57,395/- Total 1,27,39,288/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a public limited company and 100% EOU engaged in the business of Business Process Outsourcing, call centre etc. and are liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service / Business Support Services. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larations stipulated under para 3.1 and 3.2 Notification No.12/2005-ST and therefore the rebate claim is liable to be rejected. vi. The original authority rejected the refund claim for the period October 2005 to March 2006 on the additional ground of time bar in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Original, appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the Orders-in-Original. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal rejected the contention of the Department that there was a requirement for filing separate claim for two registered premises in absence of centralized registration as the original application for registration was made by the appellant for both premises. Further, on the aspect of non-filing of separate declaration in respect of two registered premises it was held that consolidated ST-3 returns filed in respect of two registered premises should be accepted for purpose of Notification No.12/2005- ST. He also relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solution Vs. CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.)] wherein it is held that registration of premises is not a pre-requisite for claiming refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on by this Tribunal in their own case cited supra wherein it was held that if period of limitation had not been mentioned in a notification, where other necessary conditions have been mentioned, then such an omission is a conscious omission by the legislature and thus held that rebate claim filed beyond a period of one year under Notification No.12/2005-ST dt. 19/04/2005 is not barred by time limit. It is his further submission that the show-cause notices did not contain the grounds on which the rebate claims were rejected and the Deputy Commissioner had travelled beyond the show-cause notices in issuing the Orders-in- Original for the three periods. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Nagpur Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7] iii. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No.20464/2017 dt. 05/04/2017] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the claims of rebate have been rightly rejected because the Declarations as per para 3.1 of Notification No.12/2005-ST have not been filed prior to the export of services and the declarations dt. 31/05/2005 and 16/05/2005 filed with the Superintendent of Service Tax does not mention the other premises from where taxable services are exported. He further submitted that the verification report of the jurisdiction Asst. Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner as stipulated under para 3.2 of the Notification No.12/2005-ST is not forthcoming from the records / documents e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were exported out of India and thus fulfilling the substantive requirement under Export of Service Rule and the Notification. Further in the appellant's own case, this Tribunal has held that omission and lapses in export invoices cannot come in the way of sanction of rebate in respect of input services if the same have been used for providing output services. Further we find that the rebate claim for the period October 2005 to March 2006 was rejected on time bar as the same has been filed beyond one year as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944; but this time limit of Section 11B is not applicable in the present case because the said notification does not provide for any time limit within which the rebate claim should h....