https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395416 The dominant issue was the "relevant date" for limitation under s.11B CEA when claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 CCR, 2004 on export of services. The Tribunal held that s.11B does not mandate the invoice date as the relevant date, and the residual "date of payment of duty" is inapplicable where no duty is paid; adopting invoice date would lead to anomalous results. Harmoniously construing s.11B with the Export of Service Rules, it held that export is completed only upon realisation of foreign exchange, making that the relevant date; refunds are not admissible before such completion. The HC/CBEC's later harmonisation via notification supported this view. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395416 The dominant issue was the "relevant date" for limitation under s.11B CEA when claiming refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 CCR, 2004 on export of services. The Tribunal held that s.11B does not mandate the invoice date as the relevant date, and the residual "date of payment of duty" is inapplicable where no duty is paid; adopting invoice date would lead to anomalous results. Harmoniously construing s.11B with the Export of Service Rules, it held that export is completed only upon realisation of foreign exchange, making that the relevant date; refunds are not admissible before such completion. The HC/CBEC's later harmonisation via notification supported this view. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395416