2018 (6) TMI 999 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – relevant date – Rule 5 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 – Whether the relevant date should be taken from the date of invoice or date of FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received? – Held that:- The respondents have filed refund claim for each quarter within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – the issue is no longer res-integra and is decided in the case of Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 – CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deci
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received. 2. Shri Dilip Shinde, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri S. Thirumalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the issue is no longer res integra in terms of the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE& SST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018- VIL-107-CESTAT-MUM-ST-LB. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner, CGST vs. Morgan Stanley India Services Pvt. Ltd. – Order No.A/85150- 85151/2018 dated 29.1.2018. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records, I find that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =