9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1598 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated Cenvat Credit - export of services - time limitation - claims have been rejected forming an opinion that period of one year has to reckon from the date of invoice - HELD THAT - Larger Bench decision in case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has considered the issue about the time limit within which a refund claim under Rule, 5 CCR may be filed. It has been observed therein that paragraph 6 of the Notification No. 5/2006-CE (up to 17/06/2012) specifies that refund claims may be made before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11(B) in CEA, 1994. The time limit of one year in the said Section is from the relevant date. The Hon‟ble Larger Bench held that a relevant date specified under above section leads no room for doubt as far as export of goods is concerned. Since the matter has already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Adjudicating Authority, also in view of the admitted fact that the impugned refund claims were filed on quarterly basis, the refund claims all still to be verified for limitation purposes however on the basis of principle held herein hence it is directed that the Adjudicating Authority, to re- examine the claims while taking the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received as the relevant date for determining the time limit. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund amount of accumulated Cenvat Credit for export services. 2. Interpretation of the relevant date for refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Amount: The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund amount of ?71,94,865 in relation to accumulated Cenvat Credit for export services. The original orders rejecting the refund claims were set aside and remanded for re-examination on the grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal found the original decision, which deemed the relevant date for refund claims as the first day of the relevant quarter, unacceptable due to being time-barred. Issue 2: Interpretation of Relevant Date for Refund Claims: The appellant, engaged in IT-enabled services for foreign customers, filed refund applications under Notification No. 27/2012-CE for Cenvat credit. The dispute arose regarding the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the time limit should be calculated from the end of the quarter in which foreign exchange is received for export of services, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents. The Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench decision concerning the time limit for filing refund claims under Rule 5. It was clarified that the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is crucial for export of services, and the relevant date can be the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's findings that the time period should be reckoned from the date of invoice, directing the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the claims based on the end of the quarter when FIRC is received as the relevant date for determining the time limit. The Tribunal also instructed the Authority to decide the matter within three months from the date of filing the order copy. In conclusion, the order rejecting the refund claims was modified, allowing the appeals with the specified scope of re-examination based on the relevant date principle. If the appellant is entitled to a refund, they will also receive consequential benefits as per the law. This detailed analysis covers the issues related to the rejection of refund amount and the interpretation of the relevant date for refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.
|
