TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s inputs services. As they could not utilize the accumulated Cenvat credit they have been filing quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dt. 18.06.2012. The department was of the opinion that the refund claims filed by the appellants for the period April 2012 to December 2013 are hit by limitation and they are liable to be rejected on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of date of invoice. Show Cause Notices were accordingly issued. The original authority has confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice and rejected the refund claims. The appellate authority, vide Orders-in-Appeal No.43-49/2017 dated 20.02.2017, has upheld such rejection. The learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) M/s.Suretax Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - 2020-TIOL-917-HC-KAR-CX. (c) CCE & Service Tax Vs M/s.Span Infotech India Private Limited - 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-Bang-LB 3. Learned Consultant further submits that vide Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 the relevant date for export of services has been prescribed. The same was held to have retrospective effect as held by the jurisdictional High Court in W.P.No.5941 & 6018 of 2018 filed by Doosan Infracore India Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner. He also submits that a beneficial notification should be construed liberally in view of Union of India Vs Suksha International & Nutan Gems and Another - 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of Section 11B may not be appropriate. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court has disagreed with the view expressed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal (supra) that Section 11B will have no application with respect to refund under Rule 5 of CCR. 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 its 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 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." 6. However, during the course of hearing learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time as enunciated by the larger Bench as discussed above, Thus, it was not possible for us to verify the claim of the appellants that the respective refund applications have been ....