TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i (impugned order). Factual Matrix 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is providing services under the category of Information Technology Software Service, Business Auxiliary Service etc. The appellant filed three refund claims as detailed below:- Appeal No. Amount of Refund Claimed Amount of Refund Sanctioned Claim Period ST/41214/2017 19,82,761/- 7,64,960/- Jan. 2014 to March 2014 ST/41215/2017 14,14,401/- 8,69,436/- April 2014 to June 2014 ST/41216/2017 23,85,276/- 23,10,995/- July 2014 to Sep. 2014 The refund claim is governed by Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012, which provides that refund claims must....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 11B be computed from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, as held by the Larger Bench decision in CCE & CST, Bengaluru Vs Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., - 2018 (2) TMI 946. E. This view has been consistently followed in later decisions, including: i. Mahima Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST & CE, Salem, 2025 (7) TMI 1543 ii. Miramed Ajuba Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 (4) TMI 214 iii. Fisher Chennai Engineering Centre, 2023 (9) TMI 1066 The Ld. Counsel hence prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal allowed. Submissions made by the Respondent-Revenue. 3.2 Shri M. Selvakumar Ld. Authorized Representative, took us through the orders of the subordinate authorities and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumed to operate retrospectively. D. Accordingly, for claims pertaining to the period prior to 01.03.2016, the relevant date is the date of export invoice, and the rejection of refund on limitation grounds calls for no interference. E. As the appellant has abandoned its claim concerning the refund pertaining to credit notes, the same has become final. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the appeal may be rejected. Discussion and Analysis 4. After carefully considering the appeal memorandum and bestowing our consideration to the facts and the submissions made by the parties, it is clear that the dispute pertains to the relevant date from which the one-year limitation under Section 11B be computed. 5. We find that the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for export of services or can be considered from the end of the quarter in which such payments have been received. 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 [(2012(281) ELT.185(Mad.)], wherein Hon'ble High Court has disagreed with the view expressed by Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of mPortal [mPortal India Ltd. [2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 01/03/2016. Essentially after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township [Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC)] (Constitutional Bench)], in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we concl....