TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od specified in Section 11(B) in CEA, 1994. The time limit of one year in the said Section is from the relevant date. The Hon‟ble Larger Bench held that a relevant date specified under above section leads no room for doubt as far as export of goods is concerned. Since the matter has already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Adjudicating Authority, also in view of the admitted fact that the impugned refund claims were filed on quarterly basis, the refund claims all still to be verified for limitation purposes however on the basis of principle held herein hence it is directed that the Adjudicating Authority, to re- examine the claims while taking the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received as the relevant date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. 78-80/ST-II/DIV-VI/Refund/Amrita Tytus/2015-R dated 29.02.2016 Sr. No. Period Online Date of filing Manual Date of filing Claimed Amount (in Rs. ) 1. July-2012 to September 2012 01.05.2013 01.05.2013 390685 2. October-2012 to December-2012 26.12.2013 30.12.2013 668464 3. January-2012 to March-2013 26.12.2013 30.12.2013 2194343 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Vide Order-in-Original No.78-80 the refund of ₹ 25,23,945/- out of ₹ 32,53,492 was sanctioned without interest and refund of ₹ 7,29,547/- refund claim was rejected. Vide Order-in-Original No. 81-87 the all seven refund claims total amounting to ₹ 64,65,318/- were rejected, being barred by time. The said findings have been upheld vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before us. 4. We have heard Mr. Kashish Kumar Gutpa, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri G R Singh Ld. DR for revenue. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claims have been rejected forming an opinion that period of one year has to reckon from the date of invoice. Whereas, this issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply the said law. Seen otherwise, there appears no infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal is also objected being premature as the Commissioner (Appeals) has not concluded the matter rather has remanded back the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-examination. Also there is no infirmity in the order, wherein it is observed that the relevant date in respect of refund claim cannot be first date of the relevant quarter. It is rightly held to be the date of invoice as relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the time limit of one year. The appeal is, accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 8. After hearing the parties and perusing the entire records we are of the opinion as follows: Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of services is concerned, the various sub-Section specifying relevant date under Section 11 (B) do not cover the case of export services. As such the issue before Larger Bench was as to whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11 B in respect of filling of refund claim 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. The same has been answered in the following words; The definition of relevant date in Section 11B does not specifically cover the case of export of services. Hence, it is necessary to interpret the provisions constructively so as to give it meaning such that the objective of the provisions; i.e. to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in case of CCE ST, Bengaluru Service Tax-I (supra) 12. While following the said decisions the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the time period of one year has to reckon from the date of invoice are hereby set aside. The above observations as far as relevant date is concerned are hereby affirmed. Since the matter has already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Adjudicating Authority, also in view of the admitted fact that the impugned refund claims were filed on quarterly basis, we are of the opinion that the refund claims all still to be verified for limitation purposes however on the basis of principle held herein hence we direct that the Adjudicating Authority, to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
