9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and a finding was made to the effect that such an amendment can have prospective effect and the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule, 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 may be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received, in case where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. The Appellant is entitled to get refund amount of Rs.1,01,841/-, Rs.1,44,215/-, Rs.1,51,869/- and Rs.1,50,650/- respectively as prayed in all these appeals with applicable interest and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within 2 months of communication of this order - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 01.03.2016 came into existence that had explained in clear and unequivocal language that date of receipt of payment in convertible exchange would be taken for the purpose of counting of the period of one year if provision of export service was already completed and therefore, with due consideration of the refund applications, only part of the refund was disallowed which had exceeded the one year time period. 3. In the given factual scenario, it is imperative to have a look at the reasoning of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and scrutinise the same with respect to the amended provision as well as the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal referred above. As could be noticed from para 6.3 of the Order-in-Appeal, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax Appeal No. 85057/2019 of CESTAT Mumbai, the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced below:- "5. Heard submissions from both the sides and perused the case record. The only logic that can be put forth in this case is that appellant had plenty of scope to seek refund of the disputed amount before the quarter ending December, 2017 in order to cover its claim within the period of limitation. But the same logic would not sustain primarily on two grounds. First, there is no evidence on record that any refund claim was made for the previous quarter in which FIRC dated 17.01.2017 would have been included. Second and the most significant reason to negativate such logic is that the rule provided appellant to file refund claim within one ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
