M\/s. K. Bit Brave Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 915 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
Appeal No. ST\/41185\/2017 – Final Order No. 41965\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nNone for the Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing services under the category of business auxiliary service, fashion design and also received various input services like manpower recruitment and supply agency service, management or business consultant service etc. for providing the output service. They filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The period of one year has to be computed from the date of receipt of FIRC and not the date of invoice in the case of export of goods. They have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.). In page 20 of the appeal memo, it is stated by them that if the period of one year is computed from the FIRC, the date of refund claim is well within the time. The FIRC used for computing export turnover are dated October 2012 to December 2012. Hence the last date of filing the refund claim would be before October 2013. The appellants have filed the refund claim on 30.9.2013 which is well within the p<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n one year for filing the refund claim. Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB) has also recently held that in the case of export of service, it is the date of receipt of FIRC which has to be taken as the relevant date and not the date of invoice. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. K. Bit Brave Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiService Tax2018 (9) TMI 915 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 10-7-2018Appeal No. ST\/41185\/2017 – Final Order No. 41965\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) None for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief … Continue reading “M\/s. K. Bit Brave Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/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-13765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13765","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=13765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13765"}],"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
\n7. From the above discussions as well as following the principle laid in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n