TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des providing Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management and Collection Services to their only client M/s. Ajuba, USA. The appellants have obtained Service Tax registration under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Business Support Services (BSS). The appellants have been utilizing various input services towards providing the above mentioned output services. In respect of the service tax paid on input services used for export of the above mentioned services, they had filed for Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit for eight quarters spanning from July 2012 to September 2014 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. The details of eight refund claims and the period involved are summarized below:- No. Appeal No. Period Involved Amount claimed (Rs.) Refund Involved (Rs.) 1 ST/41386/2017 Jan'14 to Mar'14 61,84,262 61,75,803 2 ST/41387/2017 Oct'12 to Dec'12 63,93,720 63,93,533 3 ST/41388/2017 Jul'14 to Sep'14 61,87,085 61,87,085 4 ST/41389/2017 Jul'14 to Sep'13 71,12,869 71,12,869 5 ST/41390/2017 Jul'12 to Sep'12 51,20,074 51,20,074 6 ST/41391/2017 Jan'13 to Mar'13 68,18.388 68,18.388 7 ST/41392/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to take registration of their premises. In this regard, it was informed that the appellants have registered with the service tax department from December 2008 onwards and the denial of refund claims was not on the ground that the appellant is not registered but it was only on the ground that three invoices issued by M/s. Dimension Data did not contain their Service Tax Registration Number. Though the service tax registration number of the supplier was available, non-mentioning of such registration number has been mentioned as a ground for rejection of refund. Regarding missing supplier invoices, the appellants have furnished the same before the lower appellate authority but he failed to consider the same and have not recorded any findings. The learned Advocate submitted that the eligibility of cenvat credit cannot be examined during the processing of refund claims and this should have been ideally done by the Proper Officer under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Advocate relied on the following case laws in support of his arguments. 1) Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (43) GSTL 402 - (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....afted to prescribe a procedure for claiming of refund of central excise duty under various circumstances within one year from the relevant date. The relevant date has been defined in the explanation to this Section for various purposes. As far as the export of services is concerned, no relevant date was prescribed in this Section because this was meant for refund of duty of excise and not for export of services. Since the Notification No. 27/2012 -CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 required the claim to be made before the expiry of a period specified under Section 11 B and this Section does not specify what is the relevant date in case of export of services, the Tribunal has, in a series of decisions, held that relevant date in case of export of services is the date of realization of the foreign exchange. The reason for this is the export of services is not complete unless the foreign exchange is realized as per Rule 3 (2) (b) of export of services Rules, 2005. Therefore, unless the foreign exchange is realized, the export is not complete and therefore the relevant date must be the date of realization of foreign exchange. 6.3 Subsequently, Notification No. 14/2016 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....armoniously reading the Export of Service Rules and Section 11 B of CEA, 1944, the Tribunal has held a view that in case of export of services, the relevant date must be the date of realization of foreign exchange. For this reason only, an Amending Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016 was issued to remove the lacuna in the initial Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. 6.5 We find that the issue of limitation/Time bar in the impugned order stands settled in favour of the appellants in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ,- 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri.-LB) wherein the Tribunal has held as follows:- "10. After considering the provisions of the notifications issued under Rule 5 of the CCR, we note that there is a specific condition that the refund claims are required to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B. Consequently, we are of the view that completely ignoring the 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 Karnata....