Service Tax – Cestat Chennai: Time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR is the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis, and not from one year from the date of invoice.
.jpg)
Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
23-Jun-2022 05:14:08
Order date: 13 June 2022
Facts:
- The appellants, M/s. Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in export of services like Consulting Engineering, Maintenance and Repair and Business Support Services and they availed Cenvat credit on various inputs services.
- The department was of the opinion that the refund claims filed by the appellants for the period April 2012 to December 2013 are hit by limitation and they are liable to be rejected on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of date of invoice. Hence, show cause notice had been issued.
- The original authority and the appellant authority accepted the allegations and upheld the rejection.
- Aggrieved an appeal was being filed.
Issues:
- Whether the refund claims filed by the appellants are hit by limitation on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of date of invoice.
Order:
- The Tribunal primarily relying on the case of CCE & Service Tax Vs M/s. Span Infotech India Private Limited - 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-Bang-LB held 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 Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis.
- But since the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by them were in time, the Tribunal held that it was not possible for them to verify the claim of the appellants that the respective refund applications have been filed within one year of realization of the export proceeds in the relevant quarter.
Accordingly, tor the limited purpose of verification of the relevant dates of realization of export proceeds and the dates of filing of the refund claims, the Tribunal remanded back the matter to the original authority to verify the same and to grant applicable refund to the appellants in the light of the principle laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech (supra).
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation