TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of part refund claim of the Appellant, by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai, made against accumulated credits on inputs received towards export of services is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is an exporter of service of market research analysis, data support etc. cleared without payment of duty and it has been receiving convertible foreign currency from the month of its first export made in December, 2013. The company was originally instituted in 2010 and after the first export had taken place, within one year from the date of reliasation of the export proceeds through convertible foreign currency, Appellant filed its first refund application for three quarters from Octobe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of the said Order-in-Appeal to the extent of rejection of refund is assailed in these three appeals. 3. During course of hearing of appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Vishal Agarwal with Mr. Abhishek Deodhar submitted that instead of taking the opening balance of CENVAT Credit as available on October 2013 and adding the accumulated credit of October, 2013 to December, 2013 quarter with the opening balance of credit available, Order was passed to the effect that only one quarter is to be considered against one refund application, which finding is palpably erroneous for the reason that in the safeguards, conditions and limitations prescribed in Notification no. 27/2012-CE(NT) issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time of filing of its refund applications, there is no bar on taking CENVAT credits accumulated for the period when the said premise was not registered or was in the process of registering. In placing reliance on the judicial decisions passed by the Tribunal in the case of Hyundai Motor (I) Engineering (p.) Ltd. [2017 (49) STR 385 (A.P.], Ratio Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (39) STR 31 (Tri-LB)], Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 437 (Tri-Del.)]; Contata Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (51) STR 423 (Tri.- All.)]; Aircheck India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (24) GSTL 2014 (Tri- Mumbai)]; Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (45) GSTL 272 (Tri. - Del.)], he further submitted that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal that refund cannot be disallowed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the completion of one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign currency where the provision of service had been completed prior to receipt of such payment and the said amendment was brought into the notification after the findings of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the Case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Goa Vs. Ratio Pharma India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (39) STR-31 (Tri-LB) were made to the effect that export is not completed without receipt of convertible foreign exchange, for which the said date of its receipt of foreign currency is to be taken as the 'date' for the purpose of computation of limitation period against grant of refund on export of services. He filed copy of judgment mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the relevant period for which the proportionate rejection order passed by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions and perused the case records as well as relied upon judgments. There is no dispute on availability of input balance with the Appellant but the order of rejection of refund rests primarily on two grounds. First, export commenced after October 2013 in which input credits accumulated prior to registration of Appellant Company in 2012 is included as refundable amount. The other reason noted by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) is that refund is claimed for several quarters in one refund claim application. We do not concur with his findings for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit is claimed for the prior period nor any refund claim against the said period was filed. Therefore, such an observation is made on presumption having no legal basis. Moreover, some of the CENVAT credits were also denied on the ground that the invoices were not issued in the name of present Appellant is palpably an erroneous order since Learned Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) himself has noted in para 7 of his order that certificate of incorporation submitted by the Appellant had shown change of name of the Appellant from Steer to Bluefin Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and from Bluefin Advisors Pvt. Ltd. to Zyfin Research Pvt. Ltd. and only corresponding amendment in the Service Tax registration was not made which aspect will have no bear....