2015 (4) TMI 462 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service - Bar of limitation - Whether the relevant date for deciding the limiting period of one year under Clause 6 of Appendix to Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 for sanction of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 - Held that - Relevant date for determining the period of limitation will be the date of export of services from the date when the invoices are raised and the date on which consideration is received whether it is in part or full or advanced while in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (7) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI it was held that the relevant date for refund is the date of receipt of foreign exchange. It is also to be noted that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Affinity Express India Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and Business Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 747 - CESTAT BANGALORE) were rendered by a Single Member Bench while the judgement in the case of Bechtel India Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) has been rendered by a Division Bench. - decision of this Tribunal in the case of Affinity Express India Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and Business Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 747 - CESTAT BANGALORE) were rendered by a Single Member Bench while the judgement in the case of Bechtel India Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) has been rendered by a Division Bench. It is a settled law that reference to the Larger Bench is made only in a situation when there is a contrary view expressed by two different Benches on a given issue. - in the absence of any contrary view expressed by any other Division Bench no reference lies to the Larger Bench. In our considered view, as no reference lies to the Larger Bench hence, the reference needs to be returned and is returned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determining the "relevant date" for deciding the limiting period of one year under Clause 6 of Appendix to Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) for sanction of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The matter was referred to the Larger Bench due to differing views on the issue in various Tribunal judgments. The questions referred were regarding the relevant date for determining the period of limitation for refund of Cenvat Credit in the case of exported services. The conflicting views arose from judgments like Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. and Business Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd., which considered the date of export of services, invoice dates, and receipt of consideration as relevant dates. On the other hand, Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. held the date of receipt of foreign exchange as the relevant date for refund. Notably, the decisions in Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. and Business Process Outsourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. were by Single Member Benches, while Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. was by a Division Bench. The Tribunal clarified that a reference to the Larger Bench is warranted only when there are conflicting views by different Benches on an issue. Since there was no contrary view to that of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., the reference to the Larger Bench was deemed unnecessary. As a result, the reference was returned, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Regular Bench for disposal of the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of uniformity in interpreting legal provisions and resolving conflicting views within the Tribunal. The decision emphasizes the need for consistency in legal interpretations to ensure fair and just outcomes for all parties involved.