2018 (5) TMI 1671 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Time Limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 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 , 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 - the appeal needs to be remanded back to the original authority to dispose of the refund claim as per the decision of the Larger Bench - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing refund claim on limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background: The appellant, a subsidiary of a US corporation, provides Information Technology Software Services and avails CENVAT credit. The appellant filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit for a specific period, which was denied by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider factual and legal aspects. They argued that the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the computation of one year under Section 11B was not applicable to the present case involving export of services, not goods. The appellant cited conflicting decisions on the relevant date for time limit computation, leading to the constitution of a Larger Bench to address the issue.

3. Revenue's Defense: The Revenue defended the impugned orders, emphasizing the necessity to file applications within the period specified in Section 11B. They argued that the relevant date for export of services should be the date of the first export invoice during the claim period, citing the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case.

4. Larger Bench Decision: Considering the conflicting views and the constitution of a Larger Bench, the Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for computing the one-year period for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules could be the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received for quarterly claims. Following this clarification, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the original authority for disposal in accordance with the Larger Bench's decision.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by remanding it back to the original authority, based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench regarding the relevant date for computing the period of one year for refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules.