2026 (5) TMI 1095

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeals filed by appellant as well as department against OIO dt.06.11.2017 by rejecting the appellant's appeal and allowing the departmental appeal. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant filed refund for Rs.78,80,701/- on 27.07.2017 for the period July, 2016 to September, 2016. However, the Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA) sanctioned only Rs.40,94,522/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection and also simultaneously allowed the departmental appeal for setting aside the sanctioned refund of Rs.40,94,522/-. Therefore, the entire refund claim of Rs.78,80,701/- stands rejected. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether there is time bar in filing refund claim under Ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was later rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and against which, the appellants have come in appeal. Both rejection of refund on grounds of limitation and on the grounds of non-furnishing of BRC has been decided by the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (impugned order). Learned Advocate submits that they had submitted FIRC, whereas department insisted on submitting BRC. However, what is important is to submit evidence in support that foreign exchange remittance has been received vis-à-vis export of service under the cover of a particular invoice. Learned AR points out that apart from this, they were not able to correlate FIRC with individual claims and export of service as FIRC did not contain details of invoices in relat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. The department has noticed that during the relevant period i.e., July, 2016 to September, 2016, the refund claim under Form A has been filed on 27.07.2017, whereas, one year period has expired on 30.06.2017. Therefore, such claims are beyond the limitation prescribed in the notification and the Rules. Learned Advocate for the appellant has essentially submitted that while the department is contesting that some of the invoices are beyond one year, the same would not be beyond one year if the last date of the quarter is taken into consideration for computing one year period. In this case, we find that learned Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uarter in view of very specific provision of limitation made for service provider, as distinct from manufacturer in terms of Notification No. 14/2016 dt.01.03.2016, where limitation under section 11B has been made applicable. We therefore, find that a plain reading of notification clearly requires them to file refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange. 9. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguished on facts, inasmuch as they have not considered the issue of refund in respect of service provider for period beyond 01.03.2016. The judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE & CST, Bengaluru Vs M/s Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd (supra) dealt with the provisions under Notificati....