9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 319 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund claim - time limitation - whether the time limit period of 1 year for filing the refund should be reckoned from the date of FIRC as claimed by the revenue or from quarter ending for which the refund is due? - Held that - the appellant have not opted filing of refund claim on monthly basis whereas they admittedly filed refund on quarterly basis, therefore the time period of 1 year should be reckoned from the end of the quarter. If it is so, the refund claim of the appellant were filed well within the stipulated time period of l year. The period of 1 year cannot be reckoned from the date of FIRC. The same should be reckoned from the end of the quarter. The issue has been considered in the case of CCE & CST, Bengaluru Service Tax-I Versus M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of time limit for filing refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and related notifications. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolved around determining the correct time limit for filing a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the associated notifications. The dispute was whether the time limit of one year for filing the refund should commence from the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) as contended by the revenue or from the quarter ending for which the refund is due as argued by the appellant. The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), filed the refund on a quarterly basis within one year from the end of the quarter. The Revenue argued that as an EOU, the refund should have been filed on a monthly basis, making the quarterly filings time-barred. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had not opted for monthly filings and had consistently filed on a quarterly basis. The Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench decision in a similar case, which clarified that the time limit for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules should be reckoned from the end of the quarter, not from the date of FIRC. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 11B and considered the objective of granting refunds for unutilized CENVAT credit. It was also highlighted that the date of FIRC is relevant for completing the export of services. The Tribunal concluded that, in cases of quarterly filings for export of services, the relevant date for determining the time limit for refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
