9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 575 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of one year from the end of the quarter - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period October 2012 to December 2012 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 - Held that - As per the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in CCE & CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , the period of one year should be counted from the last date of the quarter in which the FIRCs received and in the present case, the FIRCs received on 25/02/2013 and the last date to file the refund claim was up to 31/03/2014 and the refund claim was filed on 03/02/2014 which is very much within the period of one year as per the judgment of the Larger Bench. The refund claim is within the time and cannot be rejected - the case is remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of computation of the claim and sanctioning of the same which should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection on time bar. Analysis: The appellant, a service provider in Information Technology Software Services, filed a refund application for accumulated CENVAT credit for the period October 2012 to December 2012. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the claim as it was filed one year after the end of the quarter. The appellant challenged this decision, and the CESTAT remanded the case back to the original authority, holding that the time limit should be counted from the receipt of foreign exchange. The appellant filed a letter to process the refund claim, but it was rejected again by the adjudicating officer on the grounds of being time-barred. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this rejection, stating it was filed beyond one year from the end of the quarter. The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable in law, citing a Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT in a specific case. The Larger Bench determined that the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules should be counted from the last day of the quarter in which the foreign exchange was received, for quarterly claims. The appellant contended that their refund claim was within the limitation period based on this decision, as the foreign exchange was received on 25/02/2013, and the last date to file the claim should be one year from 31/03/2013. The appellant filed the claim on 03/02/2014, within the due date according to the Larger Bench decision. The learned AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal, after considering the Larger Bench decision, found that the refund claim was filed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal held that the period of one year should be counted from the last date of the quarter in which the foreign exchange was received, which in this case allowed the appellant's claim to be within the time limit. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to the original authority for computation and sanctioning of the claim within two months from the date of the order. In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the Larger Bench decision, allowed the appeal of the appellant, holding that the refund claim was within the time limit. The case was remanded for further processing within a specified timeframe.
|
