9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to various customers located outside India. The appellants have filed refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 for the quarter 1.7.2014 to 30.9.2014 on 29.9.2015 for an amount of Rs. 38,33,483/- and for the quarter January, 2015 to March, 2015 filed on 29.1.2016 for an amount of Rs. 37,74,692/-. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the refund claim was rejected solely o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty of excise or service tax. The conditions, safeguards and limitations for consideration of such refund claims have been spelt out by the Government through notifications. Notification No.5/2006 (up to 17/06/2012) and Notification No.27/2012 (w.e.f. 18/06/2012) (as amended) has specified the conditions in this regard. 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 leavs 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 ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Export of Service Rules, 2005, we note that export of services is completed only with receipt of the consideration in foreign exchange. Consequently, the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is definitely relevant. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh high Court has held that the date of receipt of consideration 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 receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
