2019 (8) TMI 679 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - period October 2016 to December 2016 - Rejection on the ground that the refund application was filed beyond the time limit of one year specified under N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) - HELD THAT - The claim has been filed for the period October 2016 to December 2016. According to the Ld. Counsel, the first payment was received on 25.11.2016 and the refund claim was filed on 31.10.2017, which squarely places the application for refund within the normal period of limitation and hence the appellant s appeal needs to be allowed. For the sole purpose of factual verification of the dates and decision in terms of notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) as amended by Notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT), dt. 01.03.2016, the matter is remanded to the original authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period October 2016 to December 2016; Rejection of refund claim on the ground of exceeding the time limit specified under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT); Interpretation of the term "Export Turnover" for calculating refund; Applicability of the time limit under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) as amended by Notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT).

Analysis:
The appellant, an exporter of services, filed a refund claim for accumulated CENVAT Credit amounting to ?31,34,531 for the period October 2016 to December 2016. The original authority partly sanctioned the claim but rejected ?9,42,363 stating it was beyond the one-year time limit specified in Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT). The appellant appealed, arguing that the refund application was filed within the time limit as per the amended notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT). The appellant contended that the calculation of "Export Turnover" for the refund was accurate, and the first payment was received on 25.11.2016, with the refund application submitted on 31.10.2017, well within the time limit. The appellant also highlighted that subsequent refund applications were partly rejected but later allowed by the first appellate authority for reevaluation based on the amended notification.

The appellant's counsel emphasized that the refund application was within the time limit as per the amended notification and referred to relevant decisions supporting their argument. The first appellate authority had considered the appellant's submissions and decided in their favor. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and the records, noting that the first payment was received before the expiry of one year from the date of the refund application. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original authority for factual verification and decision in accordance with the amended notification. The Tribunal directed the original authority to decide the issue following the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original authority for a decision based on the correct interpretation of the time limit under the relevant notifications. The appellant's argument regarding the calculation of "Export Turnover" and compliance with the time limit was upheld, emphasizing the importance of following the legal provisions and principles of natural justice in such cases.