2018 (4) TMI 359 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - relevant time - export of service - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Since the Larger Bench has clarified the position with regard to the relevant date for computing the period of one year, by following the ratio of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , I am of the considered all needs to be remanded back to the original authority to dispose of the refund claims as per the decision of the Larger Bench - appeals disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals against orders remanding matters to original authority for computation of one year in export of service under Section 11B - Relevant date for filing refund claim - Interpretation of statute - Applicability of Notification No.27/2012 - Divergent views on relevant date - Decision of Larger Bench clarifying position.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeals against orders remanding matters to original authority for computation of one year in export of service under Section 11B

The Revenue filed appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) remanding the matter to the original authority. The Commissioner(Appeals) held that the relevant date for computation of one year in the case of export of service under Section 11B is the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains. The Revenue challenged this finding, leading to the present bunch of appeals being disposed of by a common order.

Issue 2: Relevant date for filing refund claim

The case involved a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services during the export of output service falling under Information Technology Software Services. The dispute arose regarding the prescribed period of one year from the date of export as stipulated under Section 11B. The Commissioner(Appeals) interpreted the relevant date for filing the refund claim as the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains, allowing the appeal by way of remand to the original authority.

Issue 3: Interpretation of statute and Notification No.27/2012

The Revenue argued that the impugned orders were not sustainable as they did not appreciate the legal position and the notification issued by the CBEC. The Revenue contended that the relevant date for filing the refund claim should be the date of the first export invoice during the claim period. Citing a judgment of the Madras High Court, the Revenue emphasized that the relevant date should be the date of export of goods. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the relevant date as per Section 11B should be the end of the quarter in which the consideration for services is realized.

Issue 4: Divergent views and decision of Larger Bench

The assessee cited divergent views on the relevant date issue by various Benches of the Tribunal. A Larger Bench was constituted, which clarified that the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received may be taken as the relevant date for deciding the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules. Following the Larger Bench's decision, the Tribunal remanded all matters back to the original authority for disposal of the refund claims.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all Revenue's appeals by way of remand to the original authority based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench regarding the relevant date for computing the period of one year for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.