2026-VIL-849-CESTAT-HYD-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-849-CESTAT-HYD-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Refund – Time Limit for Filing Claim – One Year Period Computation - Appellant filed a refund claim for a quarterly period (July to September 2016) on 27.07.2017 for services exported in convertible foreign exchange – Rejection of refund claim on the ground that remittances were received beyond one year from the date of receipt and therefore time-barred under Notification No. 27/2012 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Appellant contended that the one year period should be computed from the last date of the quarter for which refund was filed and not from the actual date of receipt of each remittance – HELD - The Notification No. 14/2016 dated 01.03.2016 amended the earlier Notification No. 27/2012 and provided a specific time limit for service providers, requiring refund claims to be filed before expiry of one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange - A plain reading of the notification clearly requires filing of refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange. The case laws relied upon the appellant are distinguished on the ground that they dealt with provisions under Notification No. 27/2012 and not the amended provisions applicable post 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the limitation has to be counted from the date of receipt of remittances and not from the last date of the quarter - The matter is remanded back to the original Refund Sanctioning Authority to decide the refund claim – The appeal is allowed by way of remand - Refund – Evidence of Receipt of Foreign Exchange – Acceptance of FIRC and BRC - The appellant submitted Form FIRC as evidence of receipt of foreign exchange instead of Bank Realisation Certificate, contending that Circular dated 12.03.2009 permits acceptance of FIRC in lieu of BRC. Department rejected the refund claim on the ground that strict compliance with Notification No. 27/2012 required production of BRC and not FIRC for the relevant period 2016-17 – HELD - What is crucial is that the document should categorically indicate that foreign exchange has been received in respect of the invoices under the cover of which export of service has taken place. The evidence of receipt of foreign exchange can be in the form of FIRC or BRC or both, provided there is corroboration with invoices in respect of which refund has been claimed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the original Refund Sanctioning Authority with direction to examine whether remittances have been received in respect of the invoices under the cover of which export of service has taken place, based on documents to be submitted by the appellant.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?