TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im within one year from the date of every export - the relevant date in case of refund u/r 5 is the date of quarter ending and refund should be filed within one year from the said date. Reliance placed in the case of CCE&ST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 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. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/85211/2017 - ORDER No. A/86256/2018 - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (282) ELT 481 (Bom.). He also placed reliance on the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of C.Ex. vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 45 (Mad.). 3. Shri Neerav Mainkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that the issue of limitation, for the purpose of refund claim under Rule 5, has attained finality as per the Larger Bench judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-516- CESTAT-BANG-LB. He also relied upon the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of John Kells BPO Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Gurgaon 2016 (43) STR 473 (Tri.-Chan.). 4. I have carefully considered the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . These notifications specify that such refund claims are to be filed within the period specified in Section 11B. The relevant date specified under the above section leaves no room for doubt as far as export of goods is concerned. However as far as export of services is concerned, the various sub-sections specifying relevant date under Section 11B do not cover the case of export of services. Further the exporters of services have been given the option to file claims for such refunds once in a quarter and in respect of 100% EOUs, once in a month. The issue referred to Larger Bench is whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of filing of refund claims is to be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration may be taken as relevant date in the case of Hyundai Motors [2015(39) STR 984 (AP)] = 2015-TIOL-739-HC-AP-ST. 12. The related question for consideration is whether the time limit is to be restricted to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Sitel India Ltd. (supra) has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter. 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No.27/2012, w.e.f. 01/03/2016. Essentially after this amendment the relevant date is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
