Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Central Commissionerate Versus M/s L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (4) TMI 972 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 27-3-2018
Application No. ST/S/85196, 85198, 85199 & 85200/2018 And In Appeal No. ST/ 85471 to 85474/2018 – A/85861-85864/2018
Service Tax
SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri M. Suresh, Dye Commissioner (AR), for Appellant
Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate with Shri Abhijut Singh, Advocate for Respondent
Per: Ramesh Nair
The issue involved in the present case is that for the purpose of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and notification issued thereunder, whether the relevant date is the date of invoice, date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) or the ends of the quarter for which the refund pertains. This issue has been considered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ction leaves no room for doubt as far as export of goods is concerned However as far as export of services is concerned, the various sub-sections specifying relevant date under Section 11B do not cover the case of export of services. Further the exporters of services have been given the option to file claims for such refunds once in a quarter and in respect of 100% EOUs, once in a month. The issue referred to Larger Bench is whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of filing of refund claims is to be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of services or can be considered from the end of the quarter in which such payments have been received
10. After considering the provisions of the Notifications issued under Rule 5 of the CCR, we note that there is a specific condition that the refund claims are required to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B. Consequently, we are of the view that completely ignoring the provisions of Section
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
#39;ble Andhra Pradesh high Court has held that the date of receipt of consideration may be taken as relevant date in the case of Hyundai Motors [2015(39) STR 984(AP)] = 2015-TIOL-739-CH-AP-ST.
12. The related question for consideration is whether the time limit is to be restricted to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Site/ India Ltd. (supra) has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter.
13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No.27/2012, w.e.f. 01/03/2016. Essentially after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =