By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 15, 2018: THE refund claim filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was partly rejected for an amount of Rs.24,16,855/- on the ground that the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of invoice raised for providing the export services.

The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the refund claim filed online through ACES portal of CBEC website shall not be taken as date of filing of refund for the reason that the refund claim in physical form along with all the documents were filed on 6.1.2016 and, therefore, the refund was held to be time barred.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that as per the judgment in the case of Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd.– 2017-TIOL-195-CESTAT-CHD, the date of filing of refund electronically through ACES should be considered as date of filing of refund, even though the physical copy of the claim along with supporting documents were filed subsequently. Reliance is also placed on the Larger Bench decision in Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB. to emphasize that the refund has to be considered as filed on time.

The Bench observed –

++ The lower authority considered the date of filing is the date when the physical refund claim along with all the documents were filed whereas the appellant had already filed the refund claim online through ACES portal of CBEC website.

++ I am surprised that in one hand the Revenue has allowed to file refund claim online through ACES and in other hand, they are disputing such refund claim on the ground of time bar. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no provision for filing the documents online. Therefore, they have filed a physical copy of the refund claim along with all the documents. The date of filing of refund through ACES should be reckoned as date of filing of refund claim.

++ I further observe that the refund claim was admittedly filed within one year from the quarter ending to which the refund pertained. As per the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), one year for the purpose of Section 11B should be taken at the end of the quarter and not either from date of invoice or from the date of receipt of FIRC.

Concluding that on both counts, the refund claim has to be considered as filed well within time, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-1520-CESTAT-MUM)