2018 (7) TMI 1060 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Section 11B of CEA - cut off date as the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains or not? - Held that - The finding of the Commissioner that the cut of date for filing the refund claim in terms of Section 11B has to be interpreted as the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains is not sustainable in law in view of the specific provisions as provided in Section 11B and also the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it has been categorically held that in the case of export of goods, the relevant date should be the date on which the export of goods was made and not the end of the quarter - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of cut-off date for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the interpretation of the cut-off date for filing refund claims under Section 11B. The respondent had filed three refund claims seeking refund of unutilized cenvat credit paid on input services used for exporting goods.

2. The original authority rejected the refund claim citing limitation of time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claim must be filed within one year as specified in Section 11B, with the relevant date being the last date of the quarter to which the claim pertains. The Commissioner relied on a judgment to support this interpretation.

3. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's order was unsustainable as it was based on an inapplicable decision. They contended that the relevant date for making a claim for refund of cenvat credit should be the date on which the export of goods was made, not the end of the quarter. They referenced a judgment by the Madras High Court to support their argument.

4. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's interpretation of the cut-off date was not sustainable in law. They emphasized that the relevant date for export of goods should be the date of export, not the end of the quarter. The Tribunal disagreed with the reliance on a different case related to export of services and instead followed the judgments of the Madras High Court in similar cases. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment regarding the interpretation of the cut-off date for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.