2018 (7) TMI 1058 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund Claim - time limitation - Export of services - applicability of Section 11B of the CEA - Held that - The issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE whereby the Larger Bench has held that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 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. In the present case also it is the export of service and therefore by following the ratio of the Larger Bench, it can be concluded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim time-barred for certain periods, validity of refund claim for other periods, applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in export of services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the time-barred refund claim for specific periods. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing taxable services, filed refund claims for various periods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held some claims as time-barred but allowed others. The appellant and the Revenue both appealed against this decision. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner upheld some refund claims while rejecting others based on limitation. Both parties filed appeals against this decision.

The main argument by the appellant was that the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation was not valid for services exported. On the other hand, the learned AR argued against the Commissioner's decision, citing a judgment of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a previous Larger Bench decision regarding the time limit for refund claims in cases of export of services. The Tribunal found that the issue was settled, and the relevant date for considering the time limit for refund claims in export cases could be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. Based on this, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, dismissing both appeals from the assessee and the Revenue.

Therefore, the Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Larger Bench and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the impugned order was valid in terms of the time limit for refund claims in export of services.