2018 (5) TMI 1622 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of services - time limitation - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has unanimously held that the relevant date for the purpose of 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 case the refund claims are filed on quarterly basis - matter remanded to the original authority to consider the end of the quarter in which the FIRCs are received - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against remand order for fresh adjudication of refund claim.
- Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Application of decision in the case of CCE Vs. GTN Engineering (l) Ltd.
- Consideration of end of the quarter for filing refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the remand order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) directing fresh adjudication of a refund claim. The original authority had rejected the refund claim based on the limitation of time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with a specific notification. The Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after interpreting the relevant date for filing the refund claim.

2. The Commissioner(Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. GTN Engineering (l) Ltd. to determine the relevant date for filing the refund claim. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted that the refund claim should have been filed within one year from the date of issuance of the export invoice. However, considering that the statutes permitted the assessee to file the claim per quarter, the Commissioner(Appeals) interpreted the cut-off date for filing the refund claim as the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertained.

3. The Revenue contended that the impugned order remanding the case was not sustainable in law. The Revenue argued that the relevant date for filing the refund claim should be one year from the date of export of services or the date of raising the first invoice in the relevant quarter. The Revenue disagreed with the reliance on the decision in the GTN Engineering case by the Commissioner(Appeals).

4. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the impugned order and argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) correctly remanded the matter to consider the end of the quarter in which certain documents were received. The counsel referred to a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal to support this interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims on a quarterly basis.

5. The Tribunal, in line with the decision of the Larger Bench, upheld the impugned order of remand by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal found no error in considering the end of the quarter in which certain documents were received as the relevant date for filing refund claims. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed based on this interpretation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal interpretations applied, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.