2018 (6) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - The case of the department is that since the physical copy of the refund claim was filed on 5.1.2016 for the export made during the quarter ending December 2014, the refund claim is barred by limitation - Section 11B of the CEA 1944 - Held that - In case of refund u/r 5 of the CCR 2004 and N/N. 27/2012-CE, the period of limitation of one year has to be reckoned from the end of the quarter to which the refund pertains. Since in Rule 5 read with notification, there is a statutory provision of filing of refund on quarterly basis. It cannot be expected that the assessee should file the refund claim within one year from the date of every export - the relevant date in case of refund u/r 5 is the date of quarter ending and refund should be filed within one year from the said date. Reliance placed in the case of CCE&ST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification No.27/2012.

Analysis:
The case involved the respondent exporting goods between October 2014 to December 2014 and filing a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification No.27/2012. The dispute arose regarding the limitation period for filing the refund claim. The department argued that the physical copy of the refund claim was submitted after one year from the end of the quarter in which the export was made, making it time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the relevant date for the refund claim should be the date of export of goods, i.e., the date of ARE-1, as per the judgments of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras.

The respondent, on the other hand, relied on the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE&ST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., stating that the limitation issue for refund claims under Rule 5 had been settled. The respondent also cited a judgment from the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and referred to the Larger Bench's decision. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation period for refund claims under Rule 5 should be reckoned from the end of the quarter to which the refund pertains, not from the date of every export. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory provision of filing refunds on a quarterly basis under Rule 5 and Notification No.27/2012-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for such refunds is the date of the quarter ending, and the refund should be filed within one year from that date.

The Tribunal further elaborated on the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the notifications specifying conditions for refund claims. The Tribunal discussed the interpretation of the relevant date under Section 11B in the context of export of services and the necessity to facilitate the objective of granting refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. The Tribunal referred to judicial decisions regarding the relevant date in cases of export of services, considering factors like the receipt of consideration in foreign exchange. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the Larger Bench's judgment, the issue was no longer res integra, and the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.