2018 (6) TMI 45 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Period of Limitation – Refund of CENVAT credit – Relevant Date – whether the relevant date is the date shown in the invoice or the date when the FIRC is received in India in the case of refund claim filed with respect of export of services? – Held that:- The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 – CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has to be taken the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received and not the date of invoice – the rejection of refund on the ground of time-bar is unjustified – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/42460 & 42461/2017 – Final Order Nos. 41644-41645 / 2018 – Dated:- 29-5-2018 – Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Ms. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) has reckoned the relevant date for computing the period of limitation as the date of invoice in the case of export of services. That the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (2) TMI 946 has held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has to be taken the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received and not the date of invoice. She also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. CESTAT, Chennai – 2017 (3)GSTL 45 (Mad.). wherein the jurisdictional High Court had held the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the relevant date could be the date of receipt of FIRCs. 4. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The only issue that arises for consideration is whe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
osition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guidelines that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit 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 Rule5 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. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – 2014 (34) STR 437 as well as by the jurisdictional High Court in the case cited by ld. counsel for appellant. Following the said
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =