By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 10, 2016: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent, a provider of 'Banking and Financial services' had sought refund under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 in two claims.

The first refund claim dated 15th January 2014 related to the period April 2012 to June 2012 while the second filed on 23rd September 2013 related to the period from June 2012 to September 2012. The refund claims were allowed in part.

In both these claims, the issue of limitation was raised on the ground that computation of one year from the date of FIRCs would render it beyond the period of one year specified in section 11B of CEA, 1944 which has been adopted for processing of refund claims under notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18th June 2012. Credit availed on invoices issued in the name of the appellant's office situated at Hyderabad was also rejected on the ground that the same did not find a mention in the registration certificate.

Almost the entire refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner (A) and, therefore, Revenue is in appeal before the CESTAT.

Revenue contests the sanction on the ground that credit was wrongly availed on the invoices issued to the Hyderabad office of the assessee and on the ground that the finding that relevant date is the last day of the relevant quarter of receipt of FIRCs instead of the dates on which the FIRCs had been issued is not in accordance with the notification.

None appeared for the respondent.

The Bench observed -

++ Considering that there is no dispute about the receipt of services by the respondent and the utilization thereof being permissible even without registration under Finance Act, 1994, the rejection of invoices raised on an address that is not included in the registration certificate would not sustain.

++ The procedure laid down in the notification restricts filing of claims to only once in every quarter. It is also settled law that limitation will become operative only with reference to date of FIRC. Harmonious reading of both these would extend that relevant date to be the last date of the quarter in which the FIRCs were received.

++ Refund under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 mandate production of FIRCs as proof evidence of receipt of foreign convertible currency. Date of export would be an impractical deadline to compute the permissible period for seeking refund. Hence, the settled law relating to the date of issue of FIRCs being acceptable for compliance to the procedure laid down in notification 27/2012-CE(NT). The restrictions imposed on filing of refund claim cannot be further restricted by computing the deadline from the date of issue of FIRCs. Accordingly, there is no flaw in the findings of the first appellate authority that last date of quarter in which the FIRCs were issued should be the relevant date for computing the period within which the refund should be sought.

Holding that the Revenue appeal is devoid of merits, the same was dismissed.

(See 2016-TIOL-2028-CESTAT-MUM)