2018 (6) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in both the appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellant had filed Rule 5 refund claim and part of the claim was rejected on the ground of being time-barred. Hence this appeal. 3. The ld. counsel Ms. S. Yogalakshmi submitted that the adjudic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (2) TMI 946 has held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has to be taken the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received and not the date of invoice. She also relied upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her the time limit is to be restricted to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Sitel India Ltd. (supra) has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter. 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for consideration of refund claims under Rule5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis." 7. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - 2014 (34) STR 437 as well as by the jurisdictional High Court in the case ci....