9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 551 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - whether the refund claim has been filed by the appellant, within time limit of one year as per provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of CCR, 2004? - Held that - computation of time limit of one year in this case, where the appellant can file the claim on quarterly basis only, is to be taken from the date of the end of the quarter, during which export of services took place. If it is so, the appellant has filed the claim within time limit of one year, which is the prescribed time limit - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Whether the refund claim has been filed within the time limit of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? Analysis: The appeal was made against the rejection of a part refund claim amounting to ?33,93,671/- in Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-SVTAX-000-APP-166 to 171-16-17 dated 29.07.2016. The appellant argued that the time limit of one year for filing the claim should be computed from the last day of the quarter when the exports took place. The issue revolved around whether the appellant filed the refund claim within the stipulated time frame as per the relevant provisions. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and facts presented by both sides. It was noted that the appellant could file the claim on a quarterly basis, and thus, the computation of the one-year time limit should be from the end of the quarter during which the export of services occurred. Referring to a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Vs. Navistar International Pvt. Ltd., it was highlighted that the amended rule applied only to exports after 1st April 2012. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had filed the claim within the prescribed time limit as per the law of Central Excise, Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the relevant notification. Therefore, the appellant was deemed entitled to the refund claim. Based on the discussion and the Tribunal's previous decision, it was concluded that the appellant had indeed filed the refund claim within the required time frame and should be granted the refund. Consequently, the impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to the appellant.
|
