Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangaluru South GST, Commissionerate Versus Aryaka Network India Pvt Ltd
Service Tax
2018 (4) TMI 479 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE – AT
Dated:- 20-2-2018
ST\/COD\/20440\/2017 in ST\/ 21327\/2017-SM in ST\/21327\/2017-SM – 20303\/2018
Service Tax
MR. SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR), For the Appellant
\nShri Shivakumar, Advocate, For the Respondent
\nPer: S.S GARG
\nThe present appeal has been filed by the Revenue along with COD application. For the reasons stated in the COD application, I condone the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. After condoning the delay, I proceed to decide the appeal itself on merit with the consent of both the parties as the issue involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass.
\n2. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 13\/03\/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).
\n3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the responde<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present case stands settled by the recent judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the relevant date for the purpose of Section 1 1B would be the last day of the quarter in which the FIRCs are received in case of export of service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 7\/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 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, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangaluru South GST, Commissionerate Versus Aryaka Network India Pvt LtdService Tax2018 (4) TMI 479 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMICESTAT BANGALORE – ATDated:- 20-2-2018ST\/COD\/20440\/2017 in ST\/ 21327\/2017-SM in ST\/21327\/2017-SM – 20303\/2018 Service TaxMR. SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR), For the Appellant Shri Shivakumar, Advocate, For the Respondent Per: S.S … Continue reading “Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangaluru South GST, Commissionerate Versus Aryaka Network India Pvt Ltd”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I am of the view that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd. [Interim Order No,4\/2018 dt. 09\/02\/2018], wherein it has been held as under: –
\n 11. The definition of relevant date in Section 11B does not specifically cover the case of export of services Hence, it is necessary to interpret the provisions constructively so as to give it meaning such that the objective of the provisions; i.e. to grant refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, is facilitated. By reference to the Service Tax Rules, <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6 Therefore by following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, I dispose of the present a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n