2017 (4) TMI 98 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - CENVAT credit - N/N. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 - time limitation - Held that - the relevant date for computing the time limit of one year u/s 11B of CEA, 1994, in case of export of services, would be the date when the consideration for such services is received by an assessee exporter. In this regard, there is CBEC s N/N. 14/2016-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2016, where it clarifies that in case of service provider, the refund application is to be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of (a) receipt of payment inconvertible foreign exchange, where provision of services had been completed prior to receipt of such payment; or (b) issue of invoice, where payment for the service had been received in advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice. The appellant is entitled to refund claims, wherever they have filed the claim within the period of one year from the date of receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The fact that whether the appellant filed the refund claims within the period of one year from the date of receipt of consideration is to be examined by the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of refund.

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims for specific periods.
2. Interpretation of time-barred refund claims under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT).
3. Relevant date for computing the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, in case of export of services.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved the rejection of refund claims for different periods by M/s MPS Limited. Appeals No.79 and 80 of 2012 were against Order-in-Appeal number 383 to 384/2011, while Appeal No.125/2012 was against Order-in-Original No.382/2011, all passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. The refund claims were rejected either due to being time-barred or for specific reasons related to the periods in question.

2. The brief facts revealed that M/s MPS Limited, registered under the head "Business Support Service," filed refund claims for CENVAT credit under Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims, citing reasons such as being time-barred. The appellant contested these rejections before the Tribunal, seeking a favorable decision.

3. The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the relevant date for computing the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, in cases of export of services. The appellant argued that the relevant date should be the date of receipt of consideration for such services. Citing various case laws and CBEC notifications, the appellant contended that the refund application should be filed within one year from the date of receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange or the issue of invoice, depending on the payment terms.

4. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and precedents. Referring to CBEC's Notification no. 14/2016-CE(NT) and the decision in Hyundai Motor Engineering (P) Ltd Vs C.C.E., C E S.T. Hyderabad-II, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to refund claims where they had filed within one year from the date of receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to reexamine the refund claims within four months from the date of the Order, allowing the appeals by way of remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of time limits for refund claims under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) and emphasized the significance of the date of receipt of consideration in determining the eligibility for refunds in cases of export of services.

← Previous Next →