Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
V Create Technologies (I) Pvt Ltd vs Commisioner Of Gst&Amp;Ce(Salem) on 6 November, 2019
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 41426 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 169/2019-ST dated 29.04.2019 passed by the
Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office at
Salem, No. 1 Foulke's Compound, Anai Road, Salem - 636 001)
M/s. V Create Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., : Appellant
144, Second Main Road,
Shivayanagar, Alagapuram,
Salem - 636 016
VERSUS
The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, : Respondent
Salem Commissionerate, No. 1, Foulke's Compound, Anai Road, Salem - 636 001 APPEARANCE:
Shri. Rabeen Jayaram, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Arul C. Durairaj, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 41262 / 2019 DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2019 DATE OF DECISION: 06.11.2019 Heard Shri. Rabeen Jayaram, Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee and Shri. Arul C. Durairaj, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue.
2. Facts are not in dispute.The only issue that is to be decided is - "whether the appellant is eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which was denied by the authorities below on the ground of the appellant's claim being beyond the prescribed period (as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944)" ?
23. Ld. Advocate for the appellant relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Bengaluru Vs. M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri. - LB) which has been followed by this Bench in the case of M/s. TNQ Books and Journals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax : G.S.T. & C.Ex., Chennai reported in 2019-TIOL-2679-CESTAT- MAD, to submit that the issue is no more res integra.
4. Per contra, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue supported the findings of the authorities below. He, however, was unable to furnish any contrary judgements.
5.1 I find that the assertion of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant is correct as the very same issue has been gone into and decided by the Ld. Larger Bench, in the following manner :
"12. The related question for consideration is whether the time limit is to be restricted to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Sitel India Ltd. (supra), has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRC is received since the refund claim is filed for the quarter.
13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 1-3-2016. 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 (supra), 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 conclude that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis."3
5.2 In view thereof, the denial of refund under Rule 5 cannot sustain. The impugned order is therefore set aside.
6. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) Sd/-
(P. DINESHA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sdd