Limitation for export service refund runs from realization of consideration, sustaining CENVAT credit refund claims.

Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules for export of services was held not to be barred by limitation under Section 11B because the claim could be made only after realization of export proceeds, when the bank certificate required for the claim became available. The relevant date for computing limitation in such refund claims was treated as the date of realization of consideration, not the date applied by the department. The rejection order was also found to lack adequate reasons and any proper computation showing time-bar. The refund sanction was therefore upheld and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006 was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and what constituted the relevant date for computing limitation in a refund claim relating to export of services.

Analysis: The refund application had to be examined in the context of export of services, where the claim could be made only after realization of export proceeds because the prescribed documents included a bank certificate evidencing such realization. Section 11B contemplates computation from the relevant date, but the definition of relevant date in that provision is framed with reference to Central Excise duty and does not directly address refund of service tax credit on export of services. The reasoning accepted that, for such claims, the relevant date was the date of realization of consideration. The rejection by the original authority was also found to be unsupported by adequate reasons or any proper computation showing how the claim was time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, and the sanction of refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. The revenue's challenge failed.

---