TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 has to be counted one year from the last date of the quarter and not from the date of receipt of FIRCs - Admittedly, the refund claim for the quarter January, 2015 to March, 2015 and April, 2015 to June, 2015 are filed on 11/03/2016 which are well within the one year period - the refund claims for January, 2015 to June, 2015 cannot be rejected as time-barred. Whether the amount of refund claim of ₹ 5,55,616/- can be rejected on the ground that the same pertains to earlier period? - HELD THAT:- The refund claim has been filed in time. Therefore, refund of ₹ 5,55,616/- cannot be held to be time-barred. Therefore, the said refund claim is admissible to the appellant. Whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recipient for entertaining refund application. It is a fact on record that the appellant provided the service and received FIRCs against those service. Therefore, refund claim is admissible to the appellant. The refund claims, except ₹ 1,35,319/- and ₹ 3,549/- on account of tour operator service , the appellant is entitled to claim refund - Appeal allowed in part. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO: 85584 of 2019 - A/87391/2019 - Dated:- 13-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the appellant Shri Nitin Ranjan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the appellant is not entitled to refund of this amount. It was also observed by the adjudicating authority that the appellant has not received remittance from the service recipient. Therefore, refund claims are not maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue from which date the time-period of one year has to be counted in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 has been settled by the Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Bangaluru v. Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd [2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.-LB)] wherein the Tribunal held that for the purpose of deciding the time-limit of one year for refund claims, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim of ₹ 5,55,616/- can be rejected on the ground that the same pertains to earlier period; (c) whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that there was no nexus with input service and the service exported at the time of entertaining refund claims; and (d) whether it is mandatory that the service recipient itself is required to make payment for the service received and then only refund can be entertained. 7. Issue (a): Whether the refund claims re time-barred: I find that the issue of, the date from which the time-limit should be counted for filing refund claims has been decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held that the refund claim has been filed in time. Therefore, refund of ₹ 5,55,616/- cannot be held to be time-barred. Therefore, the said refund claim is admissible to the appellant. 9. Issue (c): Whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that there was no nexus with input service and the service exported at the time of entertaining refund claims; It is an admitted fact that, at the time of availment of CENVAT credit on input service on general insurance , it was not questioned to the appellant of this service having no nexus with the services exported by them. Therefore, the same cannot be questioned at the time of entertaining refund claim as held by this Tribunal in Veris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said service is having direct nexus with the output service provided by the appellant. Therefore, on merits also the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on general insurance . Therefore, refund of the said CENVAT credit cannot be rejected. 10. Issue (d): Whether it is mandatory that the service recipient itself is required to make payment for the service received and then only refund can be entertained. There is no provision in law that payment of service provided by the appellant has to be made by the service recipient for entertaining refund application. It is a fact on record that the appellant provided the service and received FIRCs against those service. Therefore, refund claim is admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
