9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1078 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - export of services - Rrule 5 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE dated on 08/02/2017 - Refund was rejected on the ground of time-bar as the same was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of FIRC - Held that - As per the facts of the case, against export of services, the FIRC were received during the period October 2015 to December 2015. Therefore, the refund for the quarter October to December was due on 01/01/2016. The refund claim was filed on 08/02/2017 which is beyond one year. Therefore, the refund was rightly rejected on time-bar. As regards the judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions India Pvt Ltd 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the same is not applicable in the present case for the reason that as per N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) as per para 3B, Section 11B was made applicable to the refund case under Rule 5. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time-bar under rule 5 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 08/02/2017 for export of service. Analysis: The appellant exported services and filed a refund claim beyond one year from the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) receipt, leading to rejection based on time-bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, prompting the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the relevant date for export of service differs from the invoice date as per Section 11B, citing the Karnataka High Court judgment and a Larger Bench interim order. The Revenue contended that the end of the quarter when FIRCs are received in foreign exchange determines the relevant date, supported by a Larger Bench decision. The Tribunal noted the dispute centered on the timeliness of the refund claim under rule 5. FIRC receipts were between October to December 2015, making the refund due on 01/01/2016, with the claim filed on 08/02/2017, exceeding the one-year limit. The Tribunal referenced the Span Infotech case to support the time-bar rejection, distinguishing the appellant's reliance on the mPortal Wireless Solutions case due to the applicability of Section 11B under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) para 3B, absent during the former case's relevant period. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal, as the refund claim was rightly rejected on the grounds of being time-barred.
|
