2018 (4) TMI 479 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground that the refund claim was beyond the time limit of one year - Section 11B of the CEA - Held that - Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has held that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Matter remanded to the original authority to compute the refund from the last day of the quarter in which the FIRCs are received - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal
2. Time limit for filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act
3. Determination of relevant date for export of services for refund claims

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue along with a COD application, seeking condonation of a 46-day delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal, and the appeal was proceeded with on its merits with the consent of both parties as the issue involved was narrow.

Time Limit for Filing Refund Claim under Section 11B:
The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the refund claim of the respondent, a 100% EOU registered under ST PI for Information Technology Services. The claim was rejected on the grounds of being beyond the one-year time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The assessee contended that the issue was settled by a Larger Bench judgment, which held that the relevant date for Section 11B in the case of export of services would be the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received.

Determination of Relevant Date for Export of Services for Refund Claims:
After considering the submissions of both parties and the material on record, the Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal interpreted the provisions constructively to facilitate the objective of granting refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in the case of export of services. The Tribunal held that the relevant date for deciding the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR in cases of export of services filed on a quarterly basis would be the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the original authority to compute the refund accordingly.