2019 (3) TMI 35 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - rejection on the ground of time bar - Held that - In this case the appellants have received the FIRC during the month of April 2016 and they filed the refund claim on 28.04.2017 which is very well within the time period i.e. 1 year before 30.06.2017 - the issue is squarely covered in favor of the appellant by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein it has been held that for the purpose of refund, relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim may be taken as end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The appellant s claim is within limitation as per the Larger Bench decision - the impugned order rejecting the refund claim is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012.
2. Time-bar for refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944.
3. Applicability of decisions in cases of export of goods versus export of services.
4. Interpretation of the relevant date for deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order rejecting a refund claim for Consulting Engineering Services and Manpower Recruitment Services. The original authority had rejected the claim as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for part of the period but held the claim for another part as hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, citing a decision of the Madras High Court. The appellant challenged this decision.

The appellant argued that the decision of the Madras High Court cited by the appellate authority was not applicable as it pertained to the export of goods, not services. Reference was made to a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in another case, which stated that the relevant date for deciding the time limit for refund claims in cases of export of services could be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had received the FIRC in April 2016 and filed the refund claim within one year, well within the time limit. Relying on the Larger Bench decision, it was held that the appellant's claim was within the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of the relevant date for deciding the time limit for refund claims in cases of export of services and overturning the decision based on the applicability of legal precedents and interpretations of the law.