Commissioner of Central GST pune II Versus ITS Digitech Pvt Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (4) TMI 1403 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 14-3-2018
ST/88101/2017 – A/85679/2018
Service Tax
Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri V.R. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the appellant
Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for the respondent
This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-119-17-18 dated 20/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune – I.
2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
3. The issue in this appeal is whether the respondent have filed the refund claims under Rule 5 within the period of one year from the expiry of the quarter for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
idered 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 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,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =