TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e FIRCs received and in the present case, the FIRCs received on 25/02/2013 and the last date to file the refund claim was up to 31/03/2014 and the refund claim was filed on 03/02/2014 which is very much within the period of one year as per the judgment of the Larger Bench. The refund claim is within the time and cannot be rejected - the case is remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of computation of the claim and sanctioning of the same which should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/20699/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20001/2019 - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Akbar Basha, CA For the Appellant Smt. Kavita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on time bar. Appellant challenged the Order-in-Original before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the claim on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of one year from the end of the quarter. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on time bar is not sustainable in law in view of the Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT in the case of CCE ST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. [2018- TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB]. He further submitted that the Larger Bench was constituted to decide from which date the period of limitation should start and the Larger Bench in the case cited above has held as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude 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 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
