9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 797 - AT - Service TaxRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the record - typographical error or not - the foreign exchange in respect of appeal has been realised on 27.04.2016, 27.05.2016 28.06.2016 but the claim was filed only on 28.07.2017 - HELD THAT - There was indeed a typographical error in mentioning the date of receipt of foreign exchange as 27.04.2016 instead of 27.07.2016. However, since this is not a case pertaining to the transitional period where the exports were made prior to 01.03.2016 and refund claim filed after the date, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Larger Bench in the case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE does not apply. It does not come to the rescue of the appellant since the application for refund was filed after one year from the date of receipt of the foreign exchange even after rectifying the mistake. Accordingly, the application for rectification of mistake is disposed of as follows The date 27.04.2016 mentioned in paragraph 10 of the final order may be read as 27.07.2016.
Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding date of receipt of foreign exchange and its impact on the time limit for filing refund claims in respect of export of services.
Analysis: 1. Rectification of Mistake: The applicant sought rectification of an alleged mistake in the Final Order regarding the date of receipt of foreign exchange. The learned counsel pointed out a typographical error in Paragraph 10 of the order, where the date was mentioned as 27.04.2016 instead of the correct date, 27.07.2016. The counsel argued that this error needed rectification to align with the actual date recorded by the first appellate authority. The request for rectification was based on the premise that the correct date would impact the time limit for filing refund claims related to the export of services. 2. Legal Submissions: The learned departmental representative acknowledged the typographical error in the Final Order but contested the application of the decision in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd to the present case. The representative highlighted that post an amendment in Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) with effect from 01.03.2016, the time limit for filing refund claims for CENVAT Credit concerning the export of services was amended to one year from the date of foreign exchange receipt. Referring to the Span Infotech case, it was argued that the amended provisions could not be applied retrospectively to exports made before the amendment. As the exports, foreign exchange realization, and refund claims in this case occurred post-amendment, the decision of the Larger Bench in Span Infotech was deemed inapplicable. 3. Judicial Findings: Upon examination, the Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in recording the date of foreign exchange receipt and corrected it to reflect the accurate date. However, the Tribunal clarified that since the case did not involve exports made before 01.03.2016 and subsequent refund claims, the decision in Span Infotech did not apply. Despite rectifying the error, the Tribunal concluded that the application for refund was filed after one year from the actual date of foreign exchange receipt, rendering the appellant ineligible for a refund even after rectification. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was disposed of with the corrected date mentioned in the Final Order. This detailed analysis encapsulates the issues of rectification of mistake in the Final Order, the legal arguments presented by both sides, and the judicial findings determining the impact of the corrected date on the time limit for filing refund claims concerning the export of services.
|
