9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 481 - AT - Service TaxRefund 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 by following the ratio of the Larger Bench - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the relevant date for the computation of one year in the case of export of service under Section 11B. 2. Applicability of the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules in the context of export of services. 3. Dispute over the interpretation of the relevant date for computation of time limit for refund claims. 4. Consideration of divergent views by different Benches of the Tribunal on the issue of relevant date for the time limit for refund claims. Analysis: Issue 1: The primary issue in the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal was the interpretation of the relevant date for the computation of one year in the case of export of service under Section 11B. The Commissioner(Appeals) had remanded the matter to the original authority, holding that the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules had to be the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains. The Revenue challenged this finding, arguing that the relevant date should be the date of the first export invoice during the claim period. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in a similar case to support their respective positions. Issue 2: Another crucial issue was the applicability of the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules in the context of export of services. The assessee contended that the relevant date, as per Section 11B, should be the end of the quarter in which the consideration for services is realized. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on a different interpretation, emphasizing the date of export of services as the relevant date for filing refund claims. The Tribunal noted the divergent views on this matter and referred to a decision by a Larger Bench to clarify the position regarding the relevant date for computing the period of one year. Issue 3: A significant dispute arose over the interpretation of the relevant date for the computation of the time limit for refund claims. The Revenue argued that the impugned orders were not sustainable as they did not properly appreciate the legal position and the relevant notifications. They contended that the date of export of services should be considered the relevant date for filing refund claims. In contrast, the assessee maintained that the end of the quarter in which the consideration for services is realized should be the relevant date for filing refund claims. Issue 4: The Tribunal also addressed the consideration of divergent views by different Benches of the Tribunal on the issue of the relevant date for the time limit for refund claims. The assessee cited decisions in their favor, emphasizing the date of receipt of consideration as the relevant date for computation of the time limit, rather than the date of the invoice. The Tribunal noted the conflicting decisions and the establishment of a Larger Bench to resolve the issue, ultimately deciding to remand the appeals back to the original authority in line with the Larger Bench's decision. Overall, the Tribunal's judgment focused on reconciling the differing interpretations of the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules in the context of export of services, ultimately remanding the appeals back to the original authority for further proceedings based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench.
|
