9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered as a service provider under the category of Information Technology Software Services. They had accumulated CENVAT credit and filed refund application on 03/02/2014 in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period October 2012 to December 2012 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 along with all the documents. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim. Thereafter, after following the due process, the original authority rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected the refund claim by holding that the claim was filed one year after end of the quarter. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as the successor provisions i.e. the Export of Services 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) S.T.R. 984 (A.P.)]. 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the proceeds for the last export invoice on 25/02/2013 and the last date to file the refund claim should be one year from 31/03/2013 whereas in the present case the appellant filed refund claim on 03/02/2014 and therefore in terms of the decision of Larger Bench in Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. case, the refund claim is filed within the due date. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal, I find that as per the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, the period of one year should be counted from the last date of the quarter in which the FIRCs received and in the present case, the FIRCs received on 25/02/2013 and the last date to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
