9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 611 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilised CENVAT Credits accumulated on account of export of services - expiry of the period of limitation of one year, counted from the date of realisation of export proceeds - time limitation - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) - HELD THAT - In CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE the amended clause B of para 3 of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) was dealt with and a finding was made to the effect that such an amendment can have prospective effect and the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule, 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 may be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received, in case where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. The Appellant is entitled to get refund amount of Rs.1,01,841/-, Rs.1,44,215/-, Rs.1,51,869/- and Rs.1,50,650/- respectively as prayed in all these appeals with applicable interest and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within 2 months of communication of this order - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
Rejection of refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) due to expiry of the limitation period for 4 quarters from January, 2016 to December, 2016. Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 for four quarters in 2016, totaling to Rs. 1,01,841/-, Rs. 1,44,215/-, Rs. 1,51,869/- and Rs. 1,50,650/- respectively. The key contention was the interpretation of the limitation period of one year for claiming refunds on unutilized CENVAT Credits accumulated from the export of services. The Appellant argued that the period should start from the commencement of the quarter until its end, as per a previous Tribunal ruling. Conversely, the Respondent-Department relied on an amended notification from 2016 that considered the date of receipt of payment in convertible exchange for the limitation period calculation, leading to the partial disallowance of the refund claims exceeding one year. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides and referred to relevant legal precedents to determine the correct interpretation of the limitation period for claiming refunds under the specified notification. The Tribunal scrutinized the reasoning behind the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, which relied on a High Court judgment and disregarded a previous Tribunal ruling. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following judicial precedents and the impact of amendments to the notification on the calculation of the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the end of the quarter as the relevant date for the limitation period in cases of quarterly refund claims, as established in previous rulings and reiterated in subsequent orders of the Tribunal. Based on the legal analysis and precedents cited, the Tribunal allowed all four appeals, setting aside the denial of part of the refund claims for the four quarters in 2016. The Tribunal directed the Respondent-Department to pay the refund amounts requested by the Appellant within two months of the order's communication, emphasizing the adherence to established legal principles and precedents in determining the limitation period for refund claims under the relevant notification. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in interpreting and applying the limitation period for claiming refunds under specific notifications, emphasizing the significance of judicial precedents and consistent legal interpretations in resolving such disputes effectively.
|
