2018 (12) TMI 304 - AT - Service Tax

Cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - export of Service - refund denied on the ground of limitation - claim filed by the appellant for the quarter January 2016 to March 2016 on 31.3.2017 - Held that - The relevant date from the date of receipt of FIRC is on 14.3.2016 - The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Span Infotech (I) 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. Refund is not barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit on export of service.
2. Whether the cash refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. GOA-EXCUS-000-APP-121-2017-18 dated 21.12.2017 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Goa. The appellant sought a cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit on export of service under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the refund claim. However, on an appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing that the refund claim was time-barred.

2. The main issue in this appeal was whether the cash refund claim filed by the appellant for the quarter January, 2016 to March, 2016 on 31.3.2017 was barred by limitation. The Revenue argued that the relevant date for computation should be the date of receipt of FIRC, which was on 14.3.2016. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Span Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. and noted that the relevant date for export of services should be considered as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, for cases where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis.

3. The Tribunal, following the ratio from the Span Infotech case, concluded that the relevant date for deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR should be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.