2016 (12) TMI 1233 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - quantification of refund amount - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18/6/2012 - quantum made on the basis of export turnover of April 2012 to June, 2012 - Held that - services related to invoice dated 6/4/2012 was already considered as export of service in the quarter January to March, 2012, therefore the same can neither be taken in total turnover nor in export turnover for the period April to June, 2012 - refund should be allowed of 30,17,233/-. Time bar - Held that - since the respondent has not claimed the refund related to invoice dated 6/4/2012 in the quarter April to June, 2012 there is no question of refund getting time bar. The respondent is correctly entitle for the refund of ₹ 30,56,748/- but the total turnover and export turnover applied by the Adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals) was wrong - appeal allowed partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Time bar for filing the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the calculation of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, engaged in various services, filed a refund claim for accumulated Cenvat credit on services exported without payment of Service Tax. The dispute arose due to the rejection of a portion of the refund claim related to a specific transaction. The Adjudicating authority allowed a partial refund, while the Commissioner(Appeals) modified the order, leading to the appeal by the Revenue. The key issue was the inclusion of a particular transaction in the export turnover for the relevant quarter, impacting the calculation of the refund amount.

2. The time bar for filing the refund claim was another crucial aspect of the case. The Revenue argued that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed after one year from the date of the relevant transaction. Citing a judgment, the Revenue contended that the refund should have been filed within one year from the date of the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the refund was not time-barred as it was related to a transaction for which a refund had already been granted in a previous quarter, eliminating the question of time bar for the current claim.

3. Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Member (Judicial) found that the transaction in question had already been considered in a previous quarter for the purpose of refund calculation. Therefore, the same transaction could not be included in the export turnover for the subsequent quarter. The Member corrected the calculation of the refund amount, emphasizing that the disputed transaction should not be counted in the total turnover or export turnover for the relevant quarter. Consequently, the Member held that the Respondent was entitled to the refund amount claimed, with a modification in the calculation methodology.

4. Regarding the time bar issue, the Member clarified that since the refund related to the disputed transaction had already been claimed in a previous quarter, there was no time bar concern for the current refund claim. The Member upheld the Respondent's entitlement to the refund amount while rectifying the errors in the total turnover and export turnover calculations made by the Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner(Appeals). The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the order pronounced on 26/05/2016.