9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to compute the time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/86317 & 86331/2017 - A/87369-87370/2018 - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These two appeals filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-SVTAX- 000-APP-011 012-17-18 dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G-LB. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the short issue involved in the present case for determination is computation of time limit for allowing the refund claim on export of services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 whether would be the last date of quarter or from the date of receipt of the foreign exchange. We find that the issue is no more res integra and considered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Resolving the conflicting view on the issue, it has been observed as follows: 9. Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for refund of u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that completely ignoring the provisions of Section 11B may not be appropriate. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court has disagreed with the view expressed by Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of mPortal (supra) that Section 11B will have no application with respect to refund under Rule 5 of CCR. 11. The definition of relevant date in Section 11B does not specifically cover the case of export of services. Hence, it is necessary to interpret the provisions constructively so as to give it meaning such that the objective of the provisions; i.e. to grant refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, is facilitated. By reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. 7. Following the aforesaid precedent, we remand the appeal to the adjudicating authority to compute the time limit in accordance with the principles laid down as above. Appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
