CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.PUN-SVTAX-000-APP-245-246-16-17 dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune.)

Metro Vally Business Park (P) Ltd. .… Appellant N 116, 3^rd Floor, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi- 100 017.

Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And …. Respondent Service Tax-I, Pune F-Wing, ICE House, 3^rd Floor, 41A, Sassoon Road, Opp. Wadia College, Pune- 411 001.

Appearance:

Shri K.A. Sayed, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Aditya Pratap Singh Parihar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85895/2025 Date of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025 Per: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and perused the case records.

2. Rejection of refund application filed by the appellant in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is the subject matter of the present dispute. The appellant had filed the refund application on 30.06.2015, claiming the refund of Service Tax paid for the period from April 2014 to June 2014. However, the refund sanctioning authority had rejected the claim application filed by the appellant on the ground that the last date of filing of the refund claim based on FIRC dated 06.06.2015 is beyond the period of one year and as such, the appellant should not be entitled for grant of refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax matter under Section 83 of the Finance Act,1994.

3. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute, whether the relevant date for consideration of the refund application should be considered either from the date of the issuance of the FIRC or from the completion date of filing of the periodic return, has been dealt with by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In the order dated 09.02.2018 passed in the case of C.C.E., CUS. & S.T., Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (12) GSTL 200 (Tri.- LB), the Larger Bench has recorded the observations, which are quoted herein below:

“13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 1-3-2016. Essentially, after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township (supra), in which the Constitutional Bench has laid down the guideline that any beneficial amendment to the statute may be given benefit retrospectively but any provision imposing burden or liability on the public can be viewed only prospectively. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, we conclude that in respect of 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.”

4. In view of the fact that the last date of the quarter should be considered for lodgment of the refund claim application and the date of issuance of the FIRC cannot be reckoned to for that purpose, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the department in rejecting the refund application cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favor of the appellant, with consequential benefit as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

(M.M. Parthiban)

SM