9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 538 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - time limitation - refund claims has been rejected as time barred filed under N/N. 27/2012-CE N.T dated 18.06.2012 - period April 2016 to June 2016 and January 2016 to March 201 - refund rejected on the ground that the foreign remittances were received prior to one year from the date of filing the refund claims are barred by limitation in terms of the Notification - HELD THAT - In the cases, in hand, the refund claim required to be filed on quarterly basis in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the appellant were required to file refund claims within one year from the date when the quarter ends and the same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. NEO GROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST 2018 (11) TMI 978 - CESTAT BANGALORE . The refund claims filed by the appellant are in time - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE N.T dated 18.06.2012. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal seeking condonation of delay of 64 days in filing refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE N.T dated 18.06.2012. The appellant had filed two refund claims for different periods, which were rejected as time-barred due to foreign remittances received prior to one year from the date of filing. The appellant relied on a previous tribunal decision in Neo Group Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C. Bangaluru, 2018 (11) TMI 978 CESTAT Bangaluru, to support their claim for allowing the refund. However, the authorized representative opposed this, citing a larger bench decision in the case of CCE, Cus & ST- Bangaluru vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.-LB), which interpreted the relevant date as the date of receipt of foreign exchange post-amendment. The tribunal analyzed these arguments and referred to the decision of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (367) ITR 466 (SC). The tribunal concluded that the refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 should be considered as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received for quarterly basis filings. Accordingly, the tribunal held that the refund claims filed by the appellant were within the time limit, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE N.T dated 18.06.2012. It highlights the importance of considering the end of the quarter for quarterly basis filings under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, as per the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. It also emphasizes the significance of consistency in tribunal decisions, as seen in the reference to the case of Neo Group Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C. Bangaluru and the misinterpretation of the larger bench decision in the case of CCE, Cus & ST- Bangaluru vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. The judgment ultimately upholds the appellant's refund claims as being timely filed, demonstrating the tribunal's adherence to legal principles and precedents in resolving the issue at hand.
|
