2018 (9) TMI 1071 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - relevant date - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The issue with regard to interpretation of the time limit prescribed under Section 11B has been set at rest by the larger Bench, in the decision of C.C.E. & Cus. & S.T. Bengaluru 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 - the appellant s claim for refund is within the time limitation - refund allowed. Input tax credit - input service - Air Travel Services - Held that - The credit on the above services also allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the application claiming refund under Section 11B was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
2. Denial of input Cenvat Credit on Air Travel Services as an ineligible input service.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue in the appeal was whether the application claiming refund under Section 11B was time-barred. The Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned a partial refund, which was challenged by the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal referred to the decision of C.C.E. & Cus. & S.T. Bengaluru Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which clarified the interpretation of the time limit under Section 11B. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the date of receipt of payment for export of services and the end of the quarter in which such payments were received. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for refund was within the time limitation as interpreted by the larger Bench, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the denial of input Cenvat Credit on Air Travel Services as an ineligible input service. The adjudicating authority had reduced the claimed amount for these services from the total credit availed, resulting in a lower eligible Cenvat Credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving the same appellant and similar circumstances, where the issue had been decided in favor of the appellant. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeals related to the denial of input Cenvat Credit on Air Travel Services, granting consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed both issues raised in the appeals, clarifying the interpretation of the time limit for refund claims under Section 11B and ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of input Cenvat Credit on Air Travel Services. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles and relevant case law to support its decisions, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the parties involved.