2018 (9) TMI 1138 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Reliance placed in the case of CCE & CST, BENGALURU SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS M/S. 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 - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a service provider under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a refund application under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for a specific period. The Original Authority sanctioned a partial refund but rejected the balance citing ineligibility based on certain notifications. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection for some invoices but allowed the refund claim for others within the same period.

2. During the hearing, the Assistant Manager - Finance for the assessee and the Department Representative for the Revenue presented their arguments and reviewed the available documents.

3.1 The Assistant Manager - Finance submitted a detailed chart showing the refund details claimed by the assessee for different invoices during the specified period.

3.2 The assessee decided not to pursue claims for certain periods and argued that one specific claim was covered by a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a related case.

4. The Department Representative supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) but acknowledged that the issue was addressed by the Larger Bench.

5.1 The Member (Judicial) considered the arguments presented and reviewed the decision of the Larger Bench, emphasizing the interpretation of relevant dates in the context of export of services and the completion of service export upon receipt of foreign exchange.

5.2 Based on the principles outlined by the Larger Bench, the Member (Judicial) allowed the refund claim only for the specific invoice that met the relevancy criteria, while not providing any findings on the claims that were not pursued.

6. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed for the specific invoice mentioned, with any necessary consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, relevant legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.