2018 (5) TMI 1521 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA as made applicable to Finance Act, 1994 - 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 - these appeals needs to be remanded back to the original authority to dispose of the refund claims as per the decision of the Larger Bench - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against dismissal of refund claims on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellants, service providers under 'Management Consultant Services,' filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit for specific periods. The claims were rejected on limitation grounds under Section 11B by the original authority and Commissioner(Appeals), leading to the present appeals.

2. Legal Arguments: The appellant's consultant argued that the impugned order lacked consideration of factual and legal aspects. He contested the Commissioner(Appeals)' reliance on a judgment related to export of goods, emphasizing that the present case involved export of services. Citing conflicting views on the relevant date for time limit computation, reference was made to a Larger Bench decision in CCE&CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which clarified the end of the quarter as the relevant date for refund claims filed quarterly.

3. Revenue's Defense: The Revenue defended the impugned orders, asserting that the relevant date for refund claims should be the date of first export invoice during the claim period. Referring to a Madras High Court judgment, it argued that any other conclusion would hinder refund claims, emphasizing the date of export of goods as the relevant date.

4. Decision: Considering the Larger Bench's clarification on the relevant date for computing the one-year period, the judge decided to remand all four appeals back to the original authority for disposal based on the Larger Bench's decision. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, aligning with the Larger Bench's ruling on the relevant date for refund claim consideration.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, conflicting views, and the ultimate decision to remand the appeals based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench regarding the relevant date for computing the time limit for refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules.