9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned Order-in-Appeal are that the appellant-assessee filed an application for refund of CENVAT Credit of Rs.32,42,592/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules ('CCR' for short), 2004 on 05.07.2010, by declaring that the input services received by them have been utilized in the provision of output services namely, consulting engineer service, which have been exported without payment of Service Tax. It appears that the appellant had also declared that they had exported the above output service without payment of Service Tax to their foreign clients, namely: - (1) EL-O-Matic Valve Actuators (FE) PTE Limited, 19, Kiran Teck Crescent, Singapore - 628885 (2) Fisher Controls International LLC., 301, South 1st Avenue, P.O. Box - 190, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have pleaded that since their claim was under Rule 5 of the CCR, time-bar stipulated under Section 11B is not applicable and in this regard, the appellant had also relied on the following orders of CESTAT Benches: - i. Gillooram Gourishankar v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ranchi [2007 (213) E.L.T. 528 (Tri. - Kol.)] ii. Swagat Synthetics Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat [2007 (220) E.L.T. 949 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] 5. The adjudicating authority having considered the explanation of the appellant during adjudication, however, vide Order-in-Original No. 84/2010 (R) dated 29.10.2010 rejected the entire claim on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, by relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri. - LB)] has clearly held that the relevant date for filing of refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR is to be reckoned from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed quarterly. 8.3 He would also refer to an Order of the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Miramed Ajuba Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai [Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41386 to 41393 of 2017] wherein vide Final Order Nos. 40245 to 40252 of 2023 dated 03.04.202, this Bench has considered the orders of various CESTAT Benches and held that the denial of refund claims, in an almost similar circumstance, is not in accordance with law. 8.4 He would thus req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, harmoniously reading the Export of Service Rules and Section 11 B of CEA, 1944, the Tribunal has held a view that in case of export of services, the relevant date must be the date of realization of foreign exchange. For this reason only, an Amending Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 was issued to remove the lacuna in the initial Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. 6.5 We find that the issue of limitation/Time bar in the impugned order stands settled in favour of the appellants in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ,- 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri.-LB) wherein the Tribunal has held as follows:- 10. After considering the provisions of the notifications issued un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Sitel India Ltd. (supra), has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter. 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 1-3-2016. Essentially, after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per way to recover ineligible credit is by resorting to Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 73 of the Finance Act and not during the time of scrutiny of refund claims. We find that in the grounds of appeal the appellants have admitted that certain excess credit was wrongly taken by them amounting to Rs.7,819/- and a few invoices involving a credit of Rs. 1,91,935/- were not submitted which were categorized as missing. The appellant is required to reverse this input tax credit as admitted by them." 13. In view of the above, we are of the clear view that the rejection of refund by the lower authorities is not in order, for which reason we set aside the impugned order. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
