75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

May 2015

2015-TIOL-739-HC-AP-ST] Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. M/s Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Relevant date for filing the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is the date of receipt of payment and not the date when the services were provided.

Facts:
Appellant is a 100% export oriented unit (EOU) engaged in export of computer software and Information Technology enabled services. The refund claims filed were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of refund was the date of rendering services and thus the claims were time barred. However, the learned CESTAT accepted the refund claim and the revenue is in appeal.

Held:
The Hon’ble High Court relying on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of CCE Pune-I vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd 2011(22) S.T.R. 223 [2011-TIOL-166- CESTAT-MUM] held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of refund would be the date of receipt of consideration and not the date of services provided.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015] 37 STR 976 (Mad.) Shri Shanmugar Service vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai

[2015-TIOL-576-CESTAT-KOL] M/s AI Champdany Industries Ltd., M/s. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-IV