2017 (7) TMI 904 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT credit - Section 11B - time limitation - denial on the ground that appellant had filed the application for refund claims of Cenvat credit beyond the period of one year from the date of export of services - Held that - It is noticed that the appellant had sought refund claim under the provisions of N/N. 27/2012-C.E (N.T) wherein it is mentioned that application needs to be filed for refund of the unutilised Cenvat credit within the time limit prescribed under the relevant provisions of the notifications. It is noticed that the entire issue is res integra inasmuch the interpretation of the lower authorities in this case is regarding the relevant date of filing of refund claim - N/N. 27/2012-CE (N.T) by N/N. 14/2016-C.E (N.T) dated 01.03.2016 so as to read what would be the period of one year in respect of service provider wherein it is mentioned that it will be from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange and also the said notification contemplates as to receipt payment of service has been as an advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice. There is no dispute as to that the refund claims have been filed within one year of receipt of foreign exchange remittances - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim of ?9,94,408 on the ground of filing beyond one year from export of services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant failed to appear despite multiple adjournments, leading to the matter being taken up for disposal in their absence.
2. The issue revolved around the rejection of the refund claim due to filing beyond the one-year period from the date of export of services, as per Section 11B provisions.
3. The Tribunal referred to a previous case to establish that the relevant date for refund claims in export of services is when foreign exchange is received in India, not the date of service provision.
4. Following precedents and changes in notifications, it was determined that the one-year period for service providers starts from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange.
5. The appellant had filed the refund claim within one year of receiving foreign exchange remittances, supported by necessary documentation, which was not disputed by the lower authorities.
6. Based on the established principles and precedents, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key points regarding the rejection of the refund claim and the considerations made by the Tribunal in reaching a decision based on legal provisions and precedents.