CCGST, Mumbai Central Versus M\/s. TA Associates Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 547 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 27-6-2018
Application No. ST\/Stay\/85541\/2018, ST\/Stay\/85514\/2018 in Appeal No. ST\/86369\/2018, ST\/86370\/2018 – A\/86796-86797\/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Dilip Shinde, AC (AR)
\nFor the Respondent : Shri Ankit Nagela, CA with Ms. Aparna Shah, CA
\nORDER
\nThese two appeals are taken up together for passing of common order as issue involved in both the appeals are identical in nature.
\n2. The narrow compass in which the department has taken up the issue to this Tribunal stage centers on the admissibility of refund claim of the<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n which it has been held that export of service is completed only on receipt of consideration in “Foreign exchange and therefore the date in Forward Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is relevant” in view of Notification no. 27\/2012 with effect from 01.03.2016 [14\/2016 (NT) refers]. The Larger Bench also had made it clear that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given effect retrospectively provided the same does not impose a burden on the public (decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhatika Township 2014-TIOL-78-SC-IT-CB referred). In the conclusion, it was held that the relevant date for purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of e<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CCGST, Mumbai Central Versus M\/s. TA Associates Advisory Pvt. Ltd.Service Tax2018 (10) TMI 547 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 27-6-2018Application No. ST\/Stay\/85541\/2018, ST\/Stay\/85514\/2018 in Appeal No. ST\/86369\/2018, ST\/86370\/2018 – A\/86796-86797\/2018Service TaxDr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Dilip Shinde, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Ankit Nagela, … Continue reading “CCGST, Mumbai Central Versus M\/s. TA Associates Advisory 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-14399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14399","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=14399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14399"}],"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