2019 (7) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation Technology Software Service and they had accumulated CENVAT credit and filed refund application on 30.01.2017 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for an amount of Rs. 35,68,834/- for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 read with Notification No.27/2012. The Department after verification of the refund claim rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 11,24,992/- being barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also upheld the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the Larger Bench....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 as the last day to file the claim was on 31.03.2017 but the appellant filed the claim on 30.01.2017. Therefore, in terms of the decision of Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., the refund claim is filed within the due date. Further, it is pertinent to reproduce the findings of the Larger Bench which is recorded in paragraphs 11-13. "11. The definition of relevant date in Section 11B does not specifically cover the case of export of services. Hence, it is necessary to interpret the provisions constructively so as to give it meaning such that the objective of the provisions i.e., to grant refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, is facilitated. By reference to the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as well as the successor provisions i.e., the Export of....