Tribunal allows cash refund of CENVAT Credit on service export, rejects time bar claim

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, allowing the appeal for cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit on export of service. The Tribunal held that the cash refund claim filed by the appellant was not barred by limitation, determining the relevant date for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit on export of service.
2. Whether the cash refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. GOA-EXCUS-000-APP-121-2017-18 dated 21.12.2017 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Goa. The appellant sought a cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit on export of service under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the refund claim. However, on an appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing that the refund claim was time-barred.

2. The main issue in this appeal was whether the cash refund claim filed by the appellant for the quarter January, 2016 to March, 2016 on 31.3.2017 was barred by limitation. The Revenue argued that the relevant date for computation should be the date of receipt of FIRC, which was on 14.3.2016. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Span Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. and noted that the relevant date for export of services should be considered as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, for cases where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis.

3. The Tribunal, following the ratio from the Span Infotech case, concluded that the relevant date for deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR should be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.

---