Case Law Details
Infosys BPO Ltd Vs C.C.E & C.S.T. (CESTAT Bangalore)
We find that almost all input services used by the assessee in the case in hand have been considered by various Benches as well as higher judicial fora. Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(12) GSTL 200 (T-LB)] has held that insofar as refund claims under Rule 5 ibid are concerned, the same have to be taken as the end of the quarter in which FIRCs received, if the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Even the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has considered a similar issue in the case of Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2020(273) ELT 481 (Kar.)] held that
“(i) time-limit envisaged in Section 11 B of the CEA, 1944 is applicable even for claiming of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules; and (ii) time-limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11 B or otherwise.”
In view of the above ruling of the jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that the Department’s appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
