9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1016 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on input services - Rejection of refund on the ground that invoices issued by Mohali unit are not covered within the period of one year to file a refund claim in terms of Notification No. 14/2016 dated 01.03.2016 - HELD THAT - As per Para 2 of Notification No. 27/12 dated 18.06.2012 the manufacturer or the service provider is required to submit one refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for every quarter and the relevant date for filing the refund claim will be considered from the end of the quarter. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S SYNGENTA SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, PUNE-II 2020 (1) TMI 1350 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that the time limit to file the refund claim would expire at the end of the quarter and this condition remains unaltered even after the amendment vide Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016. The last date to file the refund claim for invoices number 7 and 8 issued by the Mohali unit is to be calculated from the last date of the quarter i.e. 31.12.2016 and hence the refund application filed on 15.12.2017 is within the time limit as prescribed by the notification. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Refund claim rejection based on time bar under Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016.
Summary: Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,56,262/- by the Commissioner Appeal, based on being time-barred under Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016. The appellant contended that the refund claim was within the time limit, citing precedents and provisions under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that the claim was time-barred as payments for services were received before the invoice dates. Decision: Upon considering the submissions and precedents, the Tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred. Referring to Notification No. 27/12 dated 18.06.2012, it was noted that a refund claim must be filed for every quarter, with the relevant date considered from the end of the quarter. Citing previous decisions, including M/s Syngenta Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune-II, the Tribunal determined that the refund claim deadline expired at the end of the quarter, even after the amendment via Notification No. 14/16 dated 01.03.2016. By following the principles laid out in previous cases, the Tribunal calculated the last date to file the refund claim for the invoices issued by the Mohali unit from the last date of the quarter, thereby deeming the appellant's refund application filed on 15.12.2017 to be within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed. Note: The judgment was pronounced on 31.03.2023 by MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.
|
