TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals allowed: Refund claim denial overturned under CENVAT Credit Rules</h1> <h3>M/s. Sundaram Business Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai</h3> The appeals were allowed, overturning the denial of the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal interpreted the relevant ... Rejection of Refund claim - time limitation - relevant date - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time-limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR has been held to be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis and this finding is required to be applied to these cases as well since no contrary decision or order is placed on record. Reliance placed in the case of C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Bengaluru Vs. M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where it was 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 FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.2. Interpretation of the relevant date for deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellant challenged the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai. The appellant, providing various services and exporting a significant portion, accumulated CENVAT Credit, leading to a refund claim. Despite partial refunds granted for different periods, the appellant approached the forum after the rejection of the first appeal. The appellant's consultant argued against the denial of refund by the Revenue, citing the case law precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the consideration of export turnover in foreign exchange for refund calculations.Issue 2: The relevant date for deciding the time limit for considering refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. to establish that the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received should be considered the relevant date for export of services. This interpretation aimed to facilitate the objective of granting refunds for unutilized CENVAT credit, aligning with the principles laid down in previous case law and statutory provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of retrospective application of beneficial amendments and prospective application for provisions imposing burdens, ultimately setting aside the denial of refund based on the ruling of the Larger Bench.In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeals, overturning the denial of the refund claim and providing consequential benefits as per the law. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, case law precedents, and the objective of facilitating refunds for unutilized CENVAT credit in export scenarios.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
