9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has also held that the time limit for consideration of the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 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. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/21317/2018-SM & ST/21319/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21935-21936/2018 - Dated:- 27-12-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. K. S. Ramu, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellant directed against the impugned order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Mad.). The appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the above mentioned order and the Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order No.20410/2017 dated 22.3.2017 allowed the appeal by way of remand by setting aside the OIA while remanding the case to the lower authority. In the CESTAT order, it was held that the relevant date will be computed from the end of the quarter when the FIRC is received. Accordingly, the lower authority caused verification of the claims based on the CESTAT order and it was found that the claim for the period January 2010 to March 2010 was fully time barred (Rs.12,494/-). The claim for the period from April 2010 to September 2010 was partly time barred and amount of ₹ 31,343/- was sanctioned as refund an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the receipt of FIRC and the end of the quarter. She further submitted that the original authority after the remand order has conducted the verification and passed detailed order as per the direction of the CESTAT. She further submitted that on de novo proceedings, the original authority has found some of the claims within the period of limitation and the same was sanctioned and some of the claims of refund were found to be beyond limitation and the same was rejected. She further submitted that the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.-LB), after examining all the decisions has come to the conclusion that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he remand has considered the refund claim of the appellant afresh after causing verification of the claims of the appellant. Further, I find that the original authority after proper verification found some of the refund claim within time and some of the refund claim beyond time. Accordingly, what was within time was allowed and what was beyond the time as prescribed by the Tribunal was rejected and moreover, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has also held that the time limit for consideration of the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 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. Therefore, keeping in view the Larger Bench decision as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
