2018 (1) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the very same appellant, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in both the appeals is regarding. i) whether the period of limitation in filing the refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit needs to be done within one year of the raising of the invoices for export services or otherwise ii) whether CENVAT credit availed by the appellants on various services are right or otherwise iii) whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in remanding the matter as regards the issue of classification is correct or otherwise. 4. On perusal of records, it transpires that in both the appeals appellant had claimed the refund of various amounts as unut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctional High Court has categorically held, that the refund claims have to be considered as within limitation if they are filed during the period of one year from the date of Foreign Inward Remission Certificate (FIRCs). In both these cases the appellant had submitted details of FIRCs received against the invoices raised by them but the lower authorities have summarily dismissed their contention recording the provisions of Rule 5 read with notification clearly indicates that the refund claim has to be filed within one year from the date of raising of the invoices for export services. We find that both the lower authorities on this count are totally taking a view diagonally opposite to the law settled by the jurisdictional High Court Respectf....