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

.... (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 adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 66....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carrie....