Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central Versus KKR India Advisor Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 999 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
APPLICATION Nos. ST\/Stay\/93012-93016\/2017, APPEAL Nos. ST\/87590-87594\/2017 – A\/86140-86144\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant
\nShri S. Thirumalai, Advocate, for respondent
\nOrder
\nThe issue involved in the present case is, for filing of refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification No.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.
\n2. Shri Dilip Shinde, learned <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of refund under Rule 5 and Notification No.27\/2012-CE(NT) issued thereunder is the end of the quarter wherein FIRCs are received. The facts of the present case are that the respondents filed refund claim for the quarter July 2012 to September 2012 on 9.7.2013, for April 2013 to June 2013 on 4.3.2014, for July 2013 to September 2013 on 24.6.2014, for October 2013 to December 2013 on 25.9.2014, for April 2014 to June 2014 on 28.3.2014 and for July 2014 to September 2014 on 30.6.2015. From this fact, it can be seen 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 and th<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central Versus KKR India Advisor Pvt. Ltd.Service Tax2018 (6) TMI 999 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 24-4-2018APPLICATION Nos. ST\/Stay\/93012-93016\/2017, APPEAL Nos. ST\/87590-87594\/2017 – A\/86140-86144\/2018Service TaxMr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate, for respondent Order The issue involved in … Continue reading “Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central Versus KKR India Advisor 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-12317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12317","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=12317"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12317\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n