9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 118 - AT - Central ExciseTime limitation for filing refund claim - whether the refund claim was filed within one year from the last date of the order from which refund claim pertains? - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - As Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically acknowledged that in the entire case refund claim was being filed within one year from the last date of the order from which refund claim pertains. The issue is squarely covered by the various precedent decisions. In case of Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd 2020 (5) TMI 225 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Hon ble Karnataka High Court has observed that time-limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11B or otherwise. In the case of M/s Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE Larger Bench of this Tribunal has observed that we conclude that 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. Conclusion - The refund claims were filed within the limitation period specified under Section 11B. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Refund Claims and Limitation Period under Section 11B The legal framework for this issue is centered around Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which allows for the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. The relevant legal provisions include Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which prescribes the limitation period for filing refund claims. The Court noted that various notifications, including Notification No. 5/2006 and Notification No. 27/2012, specify that refund claims must be filed within the period specified in Section 11B. The Court's interpretation, supported by precedents such as the Karnataka High Court's decision in Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd., confirmed that the limitation period under Section 11B applies to refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Court emphasized that the limitation period is procedural and must be strictly applied, as established by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Uttam Steel Limited. The Court concluded that refund claims filed under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, must adhere to the limitation period specified in Section 11B, and any claims filed beyond this period are time-barred. Amendments by Notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT) and Their Applicability The notification in question amended Notification No. 27/2012 to clarify the calculation of the limitation period for refund claims. The Court examined whether these amendments applied to the refund claims for the period April-June 2016. The Court referred to the Karnataka High Court's interpretation, which stated that the amendments clarified the application of the limitation period under Section 11B. The Court found that the amendments did not alter the substantive law but merely clarified the procedural aspects, thus applying to the refund claims in question. The Court concluded that the amendments provided by Notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT) are applicable to the refund claims for the period April-June 2016, ensuring clarity in the limitation period calculation. Relevant Date for Filing Refund Claims in Export of Services The issue revolved around determining the relevant date for filing refund claims in the case of export of services. The Court considered whether the date of receipt of foreign exchange or the end of the quarter in which such foreign exchange is received should be regarded as the relevant date. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in M/s Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that the relevant date for filing refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received. This interpretation aligns with the objective of facilitating the refund process for exporters of services. The Court concluded that for refund claims filed on a quarterly basis, the relevant date should be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, thereby providing a consistent approach for calculating the limitation period. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the revenue's appeal and disposing of the cross-objection. The significant holdings include:
The Court's decision reinforces the procedural requirements for filing refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules, ensuring compliance with the specified limitation periods and providing clarity for exporters of services regarding the relevant date for filing claims.
|
