TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Orders'), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Department Appeals setting aside the Orders-in-Original passed by the Lower Adjudicating Authority (LAA) sanctioning part of refunds and also partly rejecting refund claims under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. 2. Brief facts of these appeals are as follows: - 2.1 The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of ready-made garments. They filed five refund claims of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods for the period January 2014 to March 2015. These claims were initially filed under Notification No. 27/2012-CE, instead of Notification No. 41/2012-ST, due to a clerical mistake committed on the part of the appellant. 2.2 The Original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and therefore unsustainable; iii. The time-bar or quarter-wise rejections are incorrect because Notification No.41/2012 allows claims within one year of export and does not impose the quarter-wise filing restrictions of Notification No.27/2012 CE; and iv. The Principal Bench of CESTAT's decision in Bharat Mines & Minerals support the Appellant's position. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar defended the rejections on the basis that (i) several of the services were used within the factory/place of manufacture (i.e. not beyond the place of removal) and therefore do not qualify as "specified services"; (ii) some invoiced amounts were not claimed within one year from the date of export; (iii) certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r exports." This amendment is expressly given retrospective effect from 01.07.2012 vide clause 157 of the Finance Bill 2016. It is therefore clarificatory and applicable to the period of dispute. The rejection based on the old phrase "beyond the place of removal" is therefore legally untenable. 10. The Appellant relied upon the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of Bharat Mines & Minerals v. CCE, Dehradun, 2020 (38) GSTL 101 (Tri.-Del.). 11. We have perused the aforesaid decision and find that in Para 11 and 12 of Order it has been held that: - "11. In view of the entire above observations, I am not convinced with the findings of the adjudicating authority below who have created a concept of pre and post expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igibility is established, we observe that detailed invoice-wise verification has not been carried out. The Appellant must demonstrate as to the authenticity of invoices, nexus with export-related activities and filing within one year of the date of export. As no invoices/SB's are placed before us, for verification, this aspect requires remand. 16. We find that Notification No. 41/2012-ST imposes only one condition i.e. the claim must be filed within one year from the date of export. There is no quarter-wise restriction (unlike Notification 27/2012-CE). Thus, an invoice pertaining to another quarter cannot be rejected if the claim is filed within one year of export and the nexus is shown. 17. We find that the LAA erred by importin....