Lister Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeals filed by the appellant against the order rejecting portions of refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute concerned the determination of the relevant date for computing the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appellant, engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services and Business Auxiliary Services, had filed three refund claims for the quarters January–March 2014, April–June 2014, and July–September 2014. While substantial portions of the claims were sanctioned, certain amounts were rejected on the ground that some export invoices were more than one year old on the date of filing the refund applications. The authorities treated the date of the export invoice as the relevant date for limitation purposes. Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were also dismissed.
The appellant argued that for export of services, the limitation period should be computed either from the date of receipt of foreign remittance or from the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) was received. Reliance was placed on the Larger Bench decision in CCE & CST, Bengaluru v. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that where refund claims are filed quarterly, the relevant date for limitation is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The appellant also cited subsequent decisions that had followed the same principle.
