2018 (11) TMI 978 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax paid - rejection on the ground of time limitation - relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim - Held that - This issue is no more Ras integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Span Infotech 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. In the present case also, the appellants are engaged in export of service and they have received the FIRC on different dates and thereafter, they filed the refund claim and the original authority has mis-interpreted the provisions of the Notification and held that the refund claims are barred by limitation - all the three cases are remanded to the original authority for passing the de novo order regarding the refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims rejection on limitation grounds.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 14/2016-C.EX.
3. Commissioner's remand order without specific findings.

Issue 1: Refund claims rejection on limitation grounds:
The appellant filed refund claims for taxable services provided to customers outside India under Notification No. 27/2012-C.EX. SCNs were issued proposing rejection based on limitation grounds. The original authority rejected the claims. The Commissioner (A) remanded the matter without addressing the grounds raised. The appellant argued that the remand order lacked proper appreciation of facts and law. The appellant relied on the decision in CCE Vs. Span Infotech, emphasizing the relevance of the end of the quarter for time limits on refund claims. The Tribunal found the issue settled by the Larger Bench in Span Infotech, holding that the FIRC receipt date determines the time limit for refund claims. As the authorities did not consider this, the Tribunal remanded the cases for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeals.

Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 14/2016-C.EX:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner (A) failed to consider the amendment under Notification No. 14/2016-C.EX, which was the main contention. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's order lacked specificity on the limitation issue. The Tribunal, following the Larger Bench's ruling in Span Infotech, emphasized the retrospective benefit of beneficial amendments and directed the original authority to consider the time limit for refund claims based on the FIRC receipt date. The Tribunal held that the appellant's export of services fell under this rule, requiring remand for fresh consideration.

Issue 3: Commissioner's remand order without specific findings:
The Commissioner (A) remanded the matter without addressing the appellant's arguments on the limitation issue and the applicability of Notification No. 14/2016-C.EX. The appellant challenged this remand order as lacking legal sustainability. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and the Larger Bench's judgment, found the issue settled and directed remand to the original authority for proper consideration based on the FIRC receipt date. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need for specific findings on limitation and adherence to the legal principles established by the Larger Bench.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved comprehensively, highlighting the legal arguments, authorities' positions, and the Tribunal's decision based on the relevant legal principles and precedents.