Refund limitation under Rule 5 runs from receipt of foreign exchange, while FIRC or BRC must link to invoices.

Under the post-amendment Rule 5 refund scheme for service providers, the one-year limitation runs from the actual date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange, not from the last day of the quarter. FIRC or BRC may support the refund claim, but only if the remittance is properly correlated with the relevant invoices and export of service. Documentary evidence must therefore establish a clear linkage between the foreign remittance and the specific refund claim, leaving factual verification to the sanctioning authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation period for filing refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the relevant notification, runs from the date of receipt of remittance or from the last date of the quarter. (ii) Whether refund can be supported on the basis of FIRC or BRC, and whether receipt of foreign exchange must be correlated with the relevant invoices and exports.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation period for filing refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the relevant notification, runs from the date of receipt of remittance or from the last date of the quarter.

Analysis: The applicable post-amendment refund scheme prescribed a specific time limit for service providers. The claim had to be filed within one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange where the service was completed before receipt of payment, or from the date of issue of invoice where payment was received in advance. The provision governing service providers was treated as distinct from the general limitation framework applicable to other refund claims. The earlier line of authorities relied upon by the appellant was distinguished on the basis that the post-01.03.2016 amended regime applied.

Conclusion: The limitation had to be counted from the date of receipt of remittance and not from the last date of the quarter.

Issue (ii): Whether refund can be supported on the basis of FIRC or BRC, and whether receipt of foreign exchange must be correlated with the relevant invoices and exports.

Analysis: Receipt of foreign exchange was not disputed, but the supporting document had to establish that the remittance corresponded to the invoices and the export of service for which refund was claimed. FIRC or BRC could be accepted as evidence, but only if the document clearly correlated the remittance with the relevant invoices. The matter therefore required factual verification of the linkage between the foreign remittance and the claimed exports.

Conclusion: Refund could be considered on the basis of FIRC or BRC, provided there was proper corroboration with the invoices supporting the claim.

Final Conclusion: The dispute on limitation was decided against the appellant, while the evidentiary issue was left for verification by the original sanctioning authority. The refund matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with the stated directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a post-amendment refund scheme prescribes filing within one year from receipt of convertible foreign exchange, the limitation runs from the actual receipt date, and eligibility depends on documentary correlation between the remittance evidence and the invoices for which refund is sought.

---