Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. As regarding finding that the refund claim is barred by limitation, Sr. Learned Counsel submits that the relevant date for one year claiming refund shall be the end of the quarter on which FIRCs is received. In Appellant's case, the refund claim is submitted on 30.11.2009 which is one year from the date of the quarter and due to that reason, the claims are well made within time. The issue is also considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt Ltd. Vs. C.Ex. & ST, Bangalore - (2020 (373) E.L.T 481 (Kar).

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 facilitated. By reference to the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as well as the successor provisions i.e. the Export of Services Rules, 2005, we note that export of services is completed only with receipt of the consideration in foreign exchange. Consequently, the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is definitely relevant. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the date of receipt of consideration may be taken as relevant date in the case of Hyundai Motors [2015 (39) S.T.R. 984 (A.P.)].

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."

9. In view of the findings, the impugned order is unsustainable and we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any."

14. Thus, considering the above findings, the appellant is eligible for the refund as claimed by them, however, it is necessary to prove that the refund claimed by the appellant on the input services are utilized in the output services which are being exported for which foreign inward remittances are received. We, therefore, find that the matter needs to be remanded to verify the same. Needless to say, an opportunity of hearing may be given to the appellant to place on record the documents, to justify the refund claims. We also direct the appellant to cooperate with the authorities in placing all records/documents to correlate the export invoices as against the FIRCs. It is also to be noted that vide letter dated 12.03.2009 the Board has clarified that in cases were bank do not issue FIRCs, refund may be allowed on the basis of duly certified bank statement. Accordingly, the bank statements in lieu of FIRCs can also be accepted for the purpose of sanctioning the refund claims.