Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Aksh Medialab & Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Pune on 20 February, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. ST/85539/17 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-SVTAX-000-APP-196 & 197-16-17 dated 19.1.2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune) Aksh Medialab & Software India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune Respondent
Appearance:
Shri H.P. Kanade, Advocate, for appellant Shri Atul Sharma, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 20.2.2018 Date of Decision: 20.2.2018 ORDER No. A/85313/2018 The issue involved in the present case is that whether for the purpose of Rule 5 refund, the period of one year for filing the refund should be reckoned from end of the quarter for which the claim pertains or from the date of FIRC through which the convertible foreign exchange is received.
2. Shri H.P. Kanade, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, submits that this issue has been considered by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB and it was held that the relevant date for computation of one year should be taken from the end of the quarter for which the FIRC is received and not from the date of FIRC. Accordingly the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision.
3. Shri Atul Sharma, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the impugned order. He further submits that as per Section 11B, there is no different time period provided for computing one year. As per Section 11B in case of refund related to export, the one year should be calculated from the date of export. In case of service tax matter, the date of export is the receipt of convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, the relevant date is the receipt of FIRC and one year should be computed from the date of FIRC. He submits that neither in Section 11B nor even Rule 5 and notification issued thereunder, the period of one year from the end of quarter is specified. Therefore, the period of one year should be taken from the date of FIRC and not from the end of the quarter.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that though there is no explicit provision either in Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and notification and/or under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, this issue has been considered time and again by this Tribunal and finally the Larger Bench in the case of Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the relevant date should be taken from the end of the quarter and not from the date of FIRC. Since the Larger Bench decision is binding on me, I have to follow the judicial precedent. Accordingly, following the rate of this decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2 ST/85539/17