M/s. Pixstone Images Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 45 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-5-2018
Appeal No. ST/42460 & 42461/2017 – Final Order Nos. 41644-41645 / 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial )
Ms. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
The issue involved in both the appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The appellant had filed Rule 5 refund claim and part of the claim was rejected on the ground of being time-barred. Hence this appeal.
3. The ld. counsel Ms. S. Yogalakshmi submitted that the a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e date of invoice in the case of export of services. That the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (2) TMI 946 has held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has to be taken the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received and not the date of invoice. She also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. CESTAT, Chennai – 2017 (3)GSTL 45 (Mad.). wherein the jurisdictional High Court had held the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the relevant date could be the date of receipt of FIRCs.
4. The ld. AR Shri R. Subra
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eived 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 1.3.2016. 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 Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guidelines that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =