2019 (3) TMI 418 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – rejection on the ground that export invoices against which FIRC received during the quarters April 2012 to September 2012 had already been considered in allowing the refund claims filed for the earlier period i.e. October 2011 to March 2012 – Held that:- The refund claims based on the invoice value under the old provisions, if not claimed, could be claimed within one year from the relevant date even after 1.4.2012 but not twice for the same invoices, once while raising the invoices and second time while receiving the proceeds of the invoice. Both proceedings operate in different spheres which would be clear if the proviso to Rule 5(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is read along with the amended definition of ‘export turnover services’.
–
Once the ‘export turnover of services’ is reduced automatically, the total turnover gets reduced. This fact needs to be ascertained by applying the formula in the proper perspective.
–
Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fund claim amounting to ₹ 33,97,770/-, inter alia, on the ground that the export invoices against which FIRC received during the quarters April 2012 to September 2012 had already been considered in allowing the refund claims filed for the earlier period i.e. October 2011 to March 2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging that portion of the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting part of their refund claim. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal. Hence, the present appeal is by the Revenue. 4. At the outset, learned AR for the Revenue, on the basis of the report received from the Field Formation, has submitted that with the amendment to Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.4.2012, the definition of export turnover services has been changed. It is his contention that in the earlier provisions, the value of the invoices was considered in counting the export turnover,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n calculating the refund amount. 6. I find that the dispute centres around the fact that whether the respondent has claimed refund of cenvat credit paid on input services used for providing towards export services twice i.e. for the quarters October 2011 to March 2012 and again for the quarter April 2012 to October 2012. I find that the adjudicating authority while computing the refund claim under the amended Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, reduced the export turnover of services observing that the amount shown by the respondent in the refund claim was already considered while deciding the refund amount in the earlier quarters. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal, has not elaborated as to how the refund claim was wrongly calculated by the adjudicating authority, but on an erroneous interpretation, allowed the claims, observing that the claims made earlier could also be claimed within one year. I do not find merit in the said reasoning of the learned Commis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =