For export-service CENVAT refunds, limitation runs from the quarter-end in which foreign exchange is received.

The appellant, a provider of Business Auxiliary and Business Support Services, claimed a refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for April–June 2012.

The claim, initially filed for ₹2,57,15,884 and later revised to ₹2,30,19,575, was partly sanctioned; the balance was rejected as time-barred and as including ₹1,05,009 in credit relating to invoices for unregistered premises.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant’s appeal, leading to this appeal before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the refund claim was partly barred by limitation, and what date governs the limitation period for a refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported services.

2. Whether refund of ₹1,05,009 could be denied solely because the relevant invoices pertained to unregistered premises.

Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT), governs refunds of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported services.

In CCE v. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., the Madras High Court held that the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applies to Rule 5 refund claims; the Larger Bench in CCE & ST, Bangalore v. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. held that, for export of services, the one-year period is reckoned from the last day of the quarter in which foreign exchange is received.

The Madras High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai v. CESTAT, Chennai & Scioinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. held that registration of the premises is not a prerequisite to claiming such a refund.

The Tribunal accepted that Section 11B applies to Rule 5 refunds, consistently with GTN Engineering, but held that the relevant date for exported services must be determined under the principle stated by the Larger Bench in Span Infotech.

Accordingly, the Department could not invariably calculate limitation from the export-invoice date; the period runs from the last day of the quarter in which the foreign exchange is received.

On the registration issue, the Tribunal applied the binding Madras High Court decision in Scioinspire, which does not permit denial of refund solely because the premises from which the services were exported were unregistered.

It set aside the impugned order, including the rejection of ₹1,05,009 on the ground of non-registration, and held that the appellant was eligible for consequential relief in accordance with law.