TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the criteria laid down by him in the impugned order. Since the issue in all the three appeals is identical, therefore all the three departmental appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are holder of service tax registration for rendering information technology IT enabled input services. Respondent is a 100% EOU registered with the Software Technology Park of India. Respondent have filed the following refund claims shown below in table being unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012 on the input services said to have been used in the export of output service i.e., inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity, that restrictions imposed on filing of refund claim cannot be further restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs and therefore the last date of the quarter in which the FIRC were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period within which the refund should be sought. The appellate authority therefore held that the subject claim is not time bared and allowed the appeals to this extent by way of remand. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed these three appeals. 3. Heard the learned AR and the learned consultant for the assessee. 4. The learned AR submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because as per the provisions of Section 11B which is made applicable to servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter relying upon number of decisions given by the Tribunal. Here it is pertinent to mention the findings of the learned Commissioner (A) in para 7 which is reproduced herein below: "7. Refund claim made after one year from the date of export invoice: It has been held by the original adjudicating authority in the impugned orders that portion of the claims have been by limitation of time as the refund claims have not been filed within one year from the date of export and therefore in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as has been made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994, and accordingly the original authority has rejected the time-barred portion of the claims. The appellant has contended that taking the relevant date fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposed on filling of refund claim cannot be further restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs and therefore the last date of the quarter in which the FIRCs were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period within which the refund should be sought. I find that the findings of the original authority cannot be accepted in view of the above Tribunal order and accordingly the impugned order in this regard is set aside and I direct the lower authority to verify the rejected refund claims of the appellant and account of time-bar, with reference to above criteria to see whether the refund claim filed is within the time-limit or not. The appellant are also directed to furnish the details of the considera....