9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1170 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit - applicability of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944 - claim for quarter October-December 2016 was filed on 05.01.2018 and in respect to the quarter January-March-2017 it was filed on 27.03.2018 - Department s contention is that since from the specified date the appellant filed the refund claim after one year, therefore, the refund is time barred - N/N. 14/2016-CE (N.T.) dated 01st March, 2016 - HELD THAT - The appellant in respect of the refund claim for the quarter October-December-2016 has filed on 05.01.2018 even though it was sent by post on 02.01.2018. In respect of refund claim for the quarter January-March-2017 it was filed on 27.03.2018. Since the condition in Para 2 of the Notification No. 14/2016-CE (N.T.) is that the assessee is required to file refund claim under Rule 5 not more than one in a particular quarter, the assesssee is barred to file refund claim more than one in a particular quarter, therefore, the period of one year should be reckoned from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought for - In the present case for the quarter October-December- 2016 the one year period expired on 31st December, 2017. However, the refund was filed on 05.01.2018 ,therefore, it is clearly beyond one year hence this refund amounting to ₹ 1,25,449/- for the quarter October-December-2016 is clearly time barred, hence, the rejection of the same is maintained. Refund claim amounting to ₹ 1,45,736/- pertaining to quarter January-March-2017 - HELD THAT - Claim was filed within one year from end of the quarter i.e. 27.03.2018 is held within time. Accordingly, the refund of Rs. ₹ 1,45,736/- is not time barred. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is time-barred by the limitation of one year as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant had filed refund claims for the quarters October-December 2016 and January-March 2017. The department rejected the refund claim stating that it was time-barred as per Notification No.14/2016-CE (N.T.), requiring the claim to be filed within one year from the date of export invoice or realization of foreign exchange proceeds. The appellant filed the first refund claim on 05.01.2018 and the second on 27.03.2018. The department contended that both claims were beyond the one-year limit. The Authorized Representative for the revenue highlighted the specific limitation provision under Notification No. 14/2016-CE (N.T.), emphasizing that the claims should be filed within one year from the export invoice date or payment realization date. As both claims were filed after one year, the rejection was justified. Upon review, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) observed that the appellant filed the October-December 2016 claim on 05.01.2018, exceeding the one-year period. However, the January-March 2017 claim was filed within one year from the end of the quarter. Referring to the Notification, the one-year period should be calculated from the end of the quarter for which the refund is sought. The appellant's claim for October-December 2016 amounting to Rs. 1,25,449/- was deemed time-barred and rejected. In contrast, the claim for January-March 2017 of Rs. 1,45,736/- was within the time limit and allowed. The decision was supported by precedents, citing cases such as CCE VS. M/s. Etisalat Software Solution Pvt Ltd. and CCE Vs. Prodair Air Products India Pvt Ltd. The appeal was partly allowed, granting the refund for the January-March 2017 quarter while upholding the rejection for the October-December 2016 quarter.
|
