TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the case are that the appellant is providing service to their clients located outside India and availing certain services for providing these services. As there was balance in their CENVAT credit account remaining unutilized the appellant filed three refund claims, half-yearly, for the period October 2014 to September 2015. As per Notification No. 27/2012 the appellant was required to file refund claims quarterly. Therefore, the adjudicating authority bifurcated the refund claim in four quarters. For the period October, 2014 to June, 2015 the refund claims were rejected as time-barred as the refund claims were filed by the appellant on11/03/2016. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant has filed these refund claims beyon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....616/- pertains to the period January, 2015 to June, 2015 and the appellant is entitled to refund claims. With regard to nexus of input service and output service, the Learned Counsel contended that they are not pressing for the refund claims on account of 'tour operator service' of Rs. 3,549/-. For the service of 'general insurance service' it is his contention that at the time of availment of CENVAT credit it was not questioned and the same cannot be objected to at the time of claiming refund. He further submitted that there is no provision in the service tax that the remittance should be received from the service recipient otherwise refund claim is not maintainable. In these circumstances the refund claims are to be allowed by setting asi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal holding that the time-limit under Section 11B of the Act for filing refund claims of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has to be counted one year from the last date of the quarter and not from the date of receipt of FIRCs. Admittedly, the refund claim for the quarter January, 2015 to March, 2015 and April, 2015 to June, 2015 are filed on 11/03/2016 which are well within the one year period. Therefore, I hold that the refund claims for January, 2015 to June, 2015 cannot be rejected as time-barred. Appellant has conceded refund claims for the period October, 2014 to December, 2014 during the course of argument. Therefore, refund claims of Rs. 1,35,319/- pertaining to the period October....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances by relying on the decision Technip India Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-3708-CESTAT-MUM, I hold that refund claim cannot be denied merely on the premise that services in question on which Cenvat credit remained unutilized in Cenvat credit are not 'Input Services'. In view of the above analysis, I hold that appellants are entitled for refund claim filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any." Further, the said insurance has been availed by the appellant in insurance of various movable assets which has been used for providing output service. Further, whether CENVAT credit is admissible on the service has been decided by the Tribunal i....