2018 (9) TMI 915 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Refund of Unutilized Input Service – Export of Services – Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Refund rejected on the ground of limitation – Held that:- The issue as to how the period of limitation has to be computed in the case of export of service has been settled by the decision in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 450 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein it is held that date of FIRCs has to be taken as the relevant date for computing the period of one year for filing the refund claim – rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/41185/2017 – Final Order No. 41965/2018 – Dat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ejected the refund claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. None appeared for the appellant, though notice of hearing was issued. On 22.5.2018, the matter was posted for hearing to today i.e. 10.7.2018 as last chance. Still there is no appearance for the appellant. The matter is therefore taken up for disposal after hearing the ld. AR for Revenue and on perusal of records. 3. The appellant has stated in the grounds of appeal that the department has wrongly rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The period of one year has to be computed from the date of receipt of FIRC and not the date of invoice in the case of export of goods. They have relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
have applied the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. – 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.). The issue as to how the period of limitation has to be computed in the case of export of service has been settled by the decision in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied by the appellant in their appeal memorandum, wherein it is held that date of FIRCs has to be taken as the relevant date for computing the period of one year for filing the refund claim. Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB) has also recently held that in the case of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =