TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for providing taxable output service exported from the registered premises during the disputed period. HELD THAT:- Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. SPAN INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has set the issue to rest by observing that the relevant date can be taken as end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter. Thus, the relevant date for filing refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which FIRC are received. CBEC Circular dt. 19/01/2010 clarified as submitted by the appellant regarding the nexus and the manner to deal with the voluminous records - The appellants have also submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on various case laws cited by them and the lower authority has not given them enough time to submit the records sought for, though they have been given in CD form. We find that such an action by the lower authorities is clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is the bounden duty of the authorities to examine the claim of the appellants in view of the provisions of law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the issue is no longer res integra and the same has been decided in their favour by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(12) GSTL 200 (Tri. LB)]. He submits that in view of the decision rejection of part of the refund claim being time barred by the lower authorities is not sustainable. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that nexus between input service and output service cannot be used against the appellant for rejection of refund claim when no such allegation was made for claiming the credit; the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions and eligibility criteria for claiming of refund. CBEC Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dt. 19/01/2010 clarifies at para 3.2 about one to one correlation between inputs and outputs and scrutiny of voluminous records. 2.3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants were asked to submit original FIRC certificates and to provide correlation of FIRC with export invoices; the appellants requested for time vide letter dt. 2/08/2013; however, the Asst. Commissioner passed the order dt. 29/03/2013 rejecting the claim. He further submits that le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otifications 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 services or can be considered from the end of the quarter in which such payments have been received. 10 . After considering the provisions of the notifications issued under Rule 5 of the CCR, we note that there is a specific condition that the refund claims are required to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B. Consequently, we are of the view that completely ignoring the provisions of Section 11B may not be appropriate. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 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. In view of the above, we find that the relevant date for filing refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which FIRC are received. 4.2. Coming to other issues mentioned in the appeal, we find that CBEC Circular dt. 19/01/2010 clarified as submitted by the appellant regarding the nexus and the manner to deal with the voluminous records. The Circular states as follows: 3.2.1 Similar problem of co-relation and scrutiny of large number of documents was being faced in another scheme [Notification No. 41/2007- S.T., dated 6-10-2007] which grants refund of service tax paid on services used by an exporter after the goods have been removed from the factory. In Budget 2009, the scheme was simplified by making a provision of self-certification [Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.] whereunder an exporter or his Chartered Accountant is required to certify the invoices about the correlation and the nexus between the inputs/input services and the exports. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
