9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1180 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - whether the time limit prescribed u/s 11B of the CEA 1944 in respect of filing of refund claims whether has to be considered from the end of the quarter as prescribed u/r 5 of CCR 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006, dated 14-3-2006 as amended by N/N. 27/2012 or should be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of services? Held that - As numerous appeals are pending in this Bench on this point of computation of time limit whether should be from the date of FIRC only or from the end of quarter of export of services and there being divergence of views of Tribunal, I deem it fit to direct the Registry to place this issue before the Hon ble President and seek his advice for placing all these matters before Larger Bench to settle the question of law.
Issues: Interpretation of time limit for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - computation from the end of the quarter as per Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or from the date of receipt of payment for export of services.
Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around determining the correct time limit for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The crucial question is whether this time limit should be calculated from the end of the quarter as specified in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in conjunction with Notification No.5/2006, dated 14-3-2006 as amended by Notification No.27/2012, or if it should be based on the date of receipt of payment for export of services. 2. The judgment highlights a previous decision by the Bench at Bangalore, Final Order Nos.21636-21640/2017, which held that the provisions of Section 11B should be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of services. This decision disregarded the one-year time period from the end of the quarter, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE v. GTN [2012 (281) E.L.T. 185]. Conversely, the Division Bench in the case of CST, Mumbai-II v. Sitel India Ltd. [2016-TIOL-818-CESTAT- MUM] ruled that refund claims can be filed within one year from the end of the quarter, irrespective of the date of receipt of the FIRCs in that quarter. This discrepancy in interpretations emphasizes the need for clarity on the computation of the time limit. 3. The presiding Member notes that the decision of the Single Member Bench on 5-4-2017 did not align with the perspective adopted by the Division Bench in the Sitel India Ltd. case. Given the conflicting views within the Tribunal and the pending appeals on this matter, the Member deems it appropriate to refer the issue to the Hon'ble President for consideration. The intention is to seek guidance on whether a Larger Bench should be constituted to resolve the legal question regarding the computation of the time limit for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the necessity for a definitive interpretation regarding the time limit for filing refund claims, specifically addressing the computation methodology in relation to the end of the quarter or the date of receipt of payment for export of services. The directive to refer the issue to the Hon'ble President for potential consideration by a Larger Bench reflects the significance of resolving the existing divergence of views within the Tribunal to establish a consistent legal framework.
|
