9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 154 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated CENVAT credit - time limitation - refund application filed on 30.01.2017 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for an amount of ₹ 35,68,834/- for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra and the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has held that one year is to be counted from the last day of the quarter in which FIRC is received - In the present case, it is clear from the table given in the appeal memorandum and also the invoices that the appellant received the proceeds for the last export invoice on 31.03.2016 and therefore, the last date to file the refund claim should be one year from 31.03.2016 whereas the appellant filed the refund claim on 30.01.2017 as the last day to file the claim was on 31.03.2017 but the appellant filed the claim on 30.01.2017 - Therefore, in terms of the decision of Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., the refund claim is filed within the due date. The rejection of refund on time bar is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim by Commissioner (A) due to limitation period. - Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim in case of export of services. - Comparison of decisions in similar cases for guidance. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim due to limitation period The appellant, a service provider in the Information Technology Software Service category, filed a refund application for CENVAT credit amounting to ?35,68,834 for the period from January 2016 to March 2016. The Department rejected a portion of the claim amounting to ?11,24,992 as time-barred after verification. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (A), who upheld the rejection. The appellant contended that the rejection was contrary to a Larger Bench decision and argued that the refund claim was filed within the due date based on the interpretation of the relevant date for filing such claims. Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim in case of export of services The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., which established that the relevant date for filing refund claims in the export of services should be one year from the last day of the quarter in which the foreign remittances were received. The Tribunal noted that the appellant received proceeds for the last export invoice on 31.03.2016 and filed the refund claim on 30.01.2017. By following the interpretation of the Larger Bench, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was filed within the due date and set aside the rejection based on the limitation period. Issue 3: Comparison of decisions in similar cases for guidance The Tribunal compared the findings of the lower authorities with decisions such as CCE, Hyderabad vs. Hyundai Motor India Eng. (P) Ltd. and Boston logix India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad to support its analysis. By referencing the Larger Bench decision and the interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims in export of services, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of interpreting provisions constructively to facilitate the objective of granting refunds of unutilized CENVAT credit in such cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment overturned the rejection of the refund claim based on the limitation period, highlighting the importance of interpreting relevant dates in line with established legal principles and precedents in cases involving the export of services and refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
|
