Refund claims are required to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B: CESTAT

The appellants M/s. Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the export of services like Consulting Engineering, Maintenance and Repair and Business Support Services. They have availed Cenvat credit on various inputs services. As they could not utilize the accumulated Cenvat credit they have been filing quarterly refund claims. The department observed that the refund claims filed by the appellants for the period April 2012 to December 2013 are hit by limitation and they are liable to be rejected on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of the date of invoice. The original authority has confirmed the allegations and rejected the refund claims.

The tribunal held that in principle the issue of limitation or time bar in the impugned order stands settled in favour of the appellants in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt Ltd., “there is a specific condition that the refund claims are required to be filed within the period specified under Section 11B. so, the provisions of Section 11B cannot be completely ignored.” This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering that Section 11B will have an application with respect to refund under Rule 5 of CCR. It was concluded that “in respect of the 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.”

It was observed that during the hearing the learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time. Thus, it was not possible for the tribunal to verify the claim of the appellants that the respective refund applications have been filed within one year of realization of the export proceeds in the relevant quarter. Under such circumstances, the tribunal was not in a position to decide whether or not the different claims filed by the appellants are covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech.

The Tribunal remitted the matter to the original authority for verification. Therefore, the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority. It is directed that the appellants shall produce the relevant documents/records, they wish to rely upon, before the original. The original authority shall dispose of the claims on the receipt of said documents from the appellants according to the principle laid down and law.