2018 (4) TMI 1403 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - whether the respondent have filed the refund claims under Rule 5 within the period of one year from the expiry of the quarter for which refund claim is preferred? - Held that - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore I v. Span Infotech 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 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the refund claims were filed within the prescribed period under Rule 5.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune – I. The main issue in this appeal revolved around whether the respondent had filed the refund claims under Rule 5 within the stipulated one-year period from the expiry of the quarter for which the refund claim was made. Both lower authorities determined that the one-year period should be calculated from the day of the export invoice, not the quarter for which the refund was preferred.

The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore – I v. Span Infotech Pvt Ltd, where it was 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 could be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, for quarterly refund claims. This decision was based on the principle that any beneficial amendment to the statute could be given retrospective benefit, but provisions imposing burdens or liabilities should be viewed prospectively. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was correct and upheld it, concluding that no interference was necessary.

Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue. The decision was made based on the interpretation of the relevant date for refund claims under Rule 5 in cases of export of services, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments and legal precedents.