Doosan Infracore India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by an Export Oriented Unit challenging the rejection of its refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). The petitioner had claimed refunds of input service tax credit for the periods October 2015 to December 2015 and January 2016 to March 2016. The refund applications were filed on 27.12.2016 and 28.03.2017, respectively. The respondent rejected the claims on the ground that they had not been filed within the prescribed period of one year from the relevant date, treating the relevant date as the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. The petitioner challenged these rejection orders before the High Court.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the amendment introduced through Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, which substituted Clause 3(b) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT), operated prospectively or retrospectively. Before the amendment, the refund application was required to be filed before the expiry of the period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After substitution, the relevant date for service providers was specifically defined as one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange where the provision of service had already been completed, or from the date of invoice where payment had been received in advance.
