TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that appellant had not obtained registration before filing of refund claim is not legal or proper. Time limitation - Held that: - In the case of export of services, the relevant date (starting point) for computing the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11 B of C.E Act would be the date of receipt of FICR - The Ld. Counsel does not have a case that when computed from the date of receipt of FICR, the refund claim filed for quarter June, 2012 is fully within time. He submitted that some of the transactions would be within time. This aspect has to be verified by the adjudicating authority. Appeal partly allowed - part matter on remand. - ST/21430/2014 - A/30513/2017 - Dated:- 23-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of 2012-2013. Appellants are engaged in providing taxable services of manpower recruitment/supply agency service, Security Agency Service etc. They filed refund claim on the ground that they had been exporting Surveillance Monitoring Service to M/s Pro-Vigil Inc., USA and the received various input services in India on such input services; but were not able to utilize the same and file refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notification 5/2006 and 27/2012. After due process of law, the refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on two grounds. Firstly, that appellant had not obtained registration. Secondly in the case of refund claim for 4/2012 to 6/2012, the refund claim made on 28.06.2013 is barred by limitation. In ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the appellant has filed the refund claim at the end of the relevant quarter of April, 2012 June, 2012. If computed from the end of this quarter (30.06.2012) the refund claim dated 28.06.2013 is well within time. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of CCE, Pune-III V/s AAM Services India Pvt. Ltd., [2016 (42) STR 760 ( Tri. Mumbai)]. To argue that the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal observed that the time limit for filing of refund claim is from the end of quarter during which the service are exported. He submitted that the word period stated in the Notification should be interpreted as relevant quarter and not the period of one year prescribed in Section 11 B, for the reason that appellant has to file one refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s Spandana Spoorthy Financial Ltd., (supra). Following the same I hold that the rejection of refund on the ground that appellant had not obtained registration before filing of refund claim is not legal or proper. 7. The second issue is the rejection of refund claim for the quarter April, 2012 to June 2012 on the ground of being time barred. The refund claim is filed on 28.06.2013. While computing from the date of export of services the refund is time barred. In the case of export of services, the relevant date (starting point) for computing the period of one year as prescribed in Section 11 B of C.E Act would be the date of receipt of FICR. The judgment relied by department in the case of GTN Engineering (P) Ltd., (supra) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
