ST/21775/2016-SM, ST/21777/2016-SM, ST/21779/2016-SM, ST/21783/2016-SM, ST/21784/2016-SM, ST/21785/2016-SM (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 1112-1129/2016 dated 11/08/2016 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax(Appeals)) and Final Order Nos. 20127-20132/2017. Case: Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax-II Vs Technotree Convergence Pvt. Ltd.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ST/21775/2016-SM, ST/21777/2016-SM, ST/21779/2016-SM, ST/21783/2016-SM, ST/21784/2016-SM, ST/21785/2016-SM (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 1112-1129/2016 dated 11/08/2016 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax(Appeals)) and Final Order Nos. 20127-20132/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pakshi Rajan, A.R. and For Respondents: Jatin Christopher, CA |
| Judges | S.S. Garg, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11B; Customs Tariff Act 1975 - Section 3; Finance Act, 1994 - Section 83 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
S.S. Garg, Member (J), (South Zonal Bench, Bangalore)
-
The present six appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 11.8.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has disposed of 18 appeals and from the impugned order only six appeals have been filed by the Revenue. All the six appeals are pertaining to limitation and therefore, all the six appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
-
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is registered with the Service Tax department providing taxable services falling under the category of rent-a-cab scheme operator service, consulting engineer service, security/detection agency service, manpower recruitment/supply agency service, online information and database access service, retrieval service through computer network, works contract service, information technology software services and legal consultancy services. The assessee filed six refund claims as listed below seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on input service used for providing the output services exported under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006.
Appeal No.
Period Involved
Amount
ST/21775/2016
July - September 2011
Rs. 15,06,123/-
ST/21777/2016
January March 2012
Rs. 2,86,288/-
ST/21779/2016
April June 2011
Rs. 9,88,539/-
ST/21783/2016
January March 2010
Rs. 23,18,551/-
ST/21784/2016
April June 2009
Rs. 77,43,053/-
ST/21785/2016
July September 2009
Rs. 30,36,672/-
The said refund claims contained various discrepancies and also hit by limitation of time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 and hence show-causes notice were issued to the assessee to reject the above said refund claim vide Order-in-Original on the ground of limitation of time in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act made applicable to the Service Tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the assessee preferred appeals with the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 1112-1129/2016 dated 11.8.2016, on the issue of limitation had held that refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 has to be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of export. With regard to the relevant date for computation of one year, the appellate authority has held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial