2018 (9) TMI 915 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Unutilized Input Service - Export of Services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Refund rejected on the ground of limitation - Held that - The issue as to how the period of limitation has to be computed in the case of export of service has been settled by the decision in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , wherein it is held that date of FIRCs has to be taken as the relevant date for computing the period of one year for filing the refund claim - rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on grounds of limitation in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized input service credit.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in providing services under various categories, filed a refund claim seeking refund of unutilized input service credit. The claim was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant argued that the period of limitation should be computed from the date of receipt of FIRC for export of goods, not the date of the invoice. They relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a specific case. The appellant contended that if the period of one year is calculated from the FIRC, the refund claim falls within the prescribed time limit. The FIRC used for computing export turnover was dated between October 2012 to December 2012, making the refund claim filed on 30.9.2013 well within the time limit.

The issue for consideration was whether the refund claim was time-barred. The authorities below relied on a specific decision, but the appellant cited relevant judgments to support their argument. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and a recent Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that in the case of export of service, the date of receipt of FIRC should be considered the relevant date for computing the period of one year for filing the refund claim, not the date of the invoice. Based on these precedents, the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of limitation was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed appropriate.

This judgment provides clarity on the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund claims under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 concerning unutilized input service credit. It emphasizes the significance of considering the date of receipt of FIRC for export of service as the relevant date for calculating the time limit, aligning with established legal precedents.