2025 (7) TMI 1543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....credit of input services amounting to Rs.30,90,000/-, preferred by the appellant.  2. The facts in brief are that M/s Mahima Technology Pvt Ltd., the appellant herein, is a private limited company holding a service tax registration No. AAJFM4608DST001 under the category of business auxiliary service.  The appellant is engaged in providing data capturing and validation service which are fully exported. For providing the output service, they avail input services like offshore support and maintenance services for data capture, processing and conversion.  Since the output service of the appellant is exported, they have filed the refund of accumulated Cenvat credit of their input service under Rule 5 of the Cenvat credit Rules,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant has preferred this appeal and is before this Tribunal. 3. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and submitted that the relevant date in case of export of service is to be reckoned from the date of "realization of foreign exchange" as export in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, pertaining to export of services, is complete only when the payment for such services has been received by the provider of service in convertible foreign exchange. Ld. Counsel further submitted that vide Notification No.14/2016 CE(NT), the procedure for claiming refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, prescribed in Notification No.27/2012-CE NT dated 18-06-2012 was amended to stipulate that the period of one....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t arises for consideration is whether the denial of refund claim by the lower authorities holding that the claim was barred by limitation on the aforesaid grounds, was tenable.  7. It is seen that a Larger Bench of this Tribunal reported in C.C.E, Cus. & S.T., Bengaluru v. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2018 (12) G.S.T.L 200 (Tri-LB) has examined and answered the question whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of filing of refund claims is to be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of services or can be considered from the end of the quarter in which such payments have been received. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: "9. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 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 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 f....