9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1414 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - time limitation - relevant date for the purpose of computation of one year in the case of export of service in terms of Section 11B - Held that - Larger Bench in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , after hearing of the party, has unanimously held that the relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules may be taken as the end of the quarter in Which the FIRCs are received in cases where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. 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 above said decision, this appeal needs to be remanded back to the original authority to dispose of the refund claim as per the decision of the Larger Bench. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of relevant date for computation of one year under Section 11B in the case of export of service. - Applicability of Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. - Discrepancy in views regarding the relevant date for computation of time limit for refund claims. - Reference to judgments by different courts on determining the relevant date for export of goods and services. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Relevant Date for Computation of One Year: The issue in this case revolves around determining the relevant date for the computation of one year under Section 11B in the context of export of services. The Commissioner(Appeals) held that the relevant date for filing a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, in conjunction with Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT), is the last date of the quarter to which the refund pertains. This interpretation was based on the statutory option provided to exporters to file refund claims for a quarter. The appellate authority emphasized that the claim should not be time-barred and allowed the appeal by remanding it to the original authority. 2. Applicability of Notification and Central Excise Act: The Revenue contended that the impugned order did not properly consider the legal position and the notification issued by the CBEC. They argued that the application should be filed with the Asst. Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. The Revenue further asserted that the relevant date should be the date of the first export invoice during the claim period. They cited a judgment by the High Court of Madras to support their argument that the relevant date should be the date of export of goods. 3. Discrepancy in Views on Time Limit for Refund Claims: The counsel for the assessee defended the impugned orders by stating that the relevant date under Section 11B should be the end of the quarter in which the consideration for services is realized. They argued against the Revenue's reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court, emphasizing that it pertained to the export of goods, not services. The counsel cited previous decisions supporting the assessee's position that the relevant date for the time limit computation is the date of receipt of consideration, not the date of the invoice. 4. Reference to Judgments on Relevant Date Determination: To address the divergent views on the relevant date for computing the time limit for refund claims, a Larger Bench was constituted based on a reference from a Hon'ble Single Member Bench. The Larger Bench, in the case of CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., clarified that the relevant date for deciding the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules could be considered as the end of the quarter in which the FIRCs are received for quarterly basis refund claims. Following this clarification, the appeal was remanded back to the original authority for disposal in accordance with the Larger Bench's decision.
|
