9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1066 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - input services received have been utilized in the provision of output services, which have been exported without payment of Service Tax - rejection on the ground of time limitation - period April 2008 to June 2009 - HELD THAT - This Bench has considered in threadbare almost similar issue in the light of the Order of the Ld. 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 and also referred to orders of various CESTAT Benches across the country, and held In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. The rejection of refund by the lower authorities is not in order, for which reason the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of denial of refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, based on the grounds of time-bar. Summary: The appellant filed an application for refund of CENVAT Credit of Rs.32,42,592 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for input services utilized in providing output services exported without payment of Service Tax. The appellant declared the export of services to foreign clients between April 2008 and June 2009. A Show Cause Notice was issued questioning the time-bar of the refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim as time-barred, citing the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case. The appellant appealed, arguing that the time limit should be reckoned from the receipt of foreign exchange. The appellate tribunal considered similar cases and held that the date of realization of foreign exchange is the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal noted that the relevant date for export of services is the date of realization of foreign exchange, as per the Export of Service Rules. It referenced the decision in the Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. case and held that the time limit for refund claims can be considered from the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received. The tribunal also addressed issues related to missing invoices and excess credit wrongly taken, stating that recovery of ineligible credit should be done under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, not during the scrutiny of refund claims. The tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund by the lower authorities was not justified and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the authority to grant the refund as claimed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
|
