Consultancy firm wins refund claim appeal citing Rule 5 & Span Infotech case

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim due to a limitation period expiration. The appellant, a consultancy services provider, argued based on Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the Span Infotech case, emphasizing the end-of-quarter date for refund claims. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments, noting the limitation period calculation and the one-refund-per-quarter clause. The respondent-department was directed to pay the refund amount with applicable interest within two months of the order communication.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation period expiration.

Analysis:
The appellant, a consultancy services provider, sought a refund of CENVAT credit but faced rejection for one FIRC due to being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the amended Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) post the Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. case. The appellant argued citing Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the Span Infotech case, emphasizing the end-of-quarter date for refund claims. The appellant referenced various CESTAT decisions supporting their stance and sought to set aside the rejection.

The respondent-department defended the rejection, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and the amended notification. They argued against interference, stating the appellant's claim was filed after the stipulated one-year period. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and the case record. The Tribunal noted the appellant had ample time to claim the refund before the December 2017 quarter end but highlighted two key reasons against the respondent's argument. Firstly, no evidence existed for a previous quarter refund claim, and secondly, the limitation period would expire before the one-year mark due to the one-refund-per-quarter clause. The Tribunal upheld the Span Infotech case's findings on limitation period calculation, even post the amended notification, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection.

In the final order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim. The respondent-department was directed to pay the refund amount with applicable interest within two months of the order communication.

---