2018 (5) TMI 1621 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation and also on the ground that the appellants have not furnished the invoices and service tax details and service tax registration number not available on the invoices - 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 CCR 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 - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to decide the refund claims as per the decision of the Larger Bench - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time bar for refund claim filed by the appellant.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to non-submission of invoices and service tax details.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed appeals against an order dismissing one appeal as time-barred and rejecting another due to missing invoices and service tax details. The appellant sought a refund of unutilized input service credit for exported services. The rejection was based on the time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and lack of invoice details.

2. The appellant argued that the denial of refunds and non-submission grounds were legally unsound, contrary to the Act and previous judicial decisions. The appellant's inability to utilize CENVAT credit due to exporting services justified the refund claims. The Commissioner(Appeals) relied on a Madras High Court judgment regarding the relevant date for time limits, which the appellant contended was inapplicable to service exports. A Larger Bench decision clarified the relevant date for refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules.

3. The appellant requested an opportunity to present the missing invoice details for the rejected claim. The Revenue defended the orders, citing Notification No.27/2012 and the Madras High Court judgment's interpretation of the relevant date for export services. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the original authority to reconsider the refund claims in line with the Larger Bench decision, emphasizing natural justice principles and document submission opportunities for the appellant.

4. Ultimately, both appeals were disposed of by remand, allowing the original authority to review the refund claims based on the clarified relevant date for time limits and consider any additional documents provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment following the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority to decide the refund claims considering the clarified relevant date for time limits and allowing the appellant to submit missing invoice details for one of the rejected claims. The decision upheld the principles of natural justice and emphasized a fair review process for the refund claims.