2018 (12) TMI 1538 - AT - Service Tax

Refunds of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 and N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012 - Held that - The original authority after proper verification found some of the refund claim within time and some of the refund claim beyond time. Accordingly, what was within time was allowed and what was beyond the time as prescribed by the Tribunal was rejected. Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE has also held that the time limit for consideration of the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 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:
1. Rejection of refund claims by Commissioner (A) as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Appellant's challenge against rejection based on remand order by Tribunal and legal precedents.
3. Verification and consideration of refund claims by original authority post remand.
4. Interpretation of relevant date for time limit consideration under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Commissioner (A)'s order rejecting refund claims as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants provided taxable services and sought refunds of CENVAT credit for various input services. The Deputy Commissioner had earlier rejected the claims as time-barred, which was upheld by the Commissioner (A) based on the Madras High Court decision. The Tribunal, in a previous order, remanded the case back to the lower authority for reconsideration.

2. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the remand order properly and contended that the limitation period under Section 11B should not apply, citing legal precedents like the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. KVR Construction. On the other hand, the Respondent defended the impugned order, highlighting the Tribunal's direction to consider the FIRC receipt date as the relevant date for time limit calculation. The Respondent also referenced a Larger Bench decision regarding the relevant date for refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

3. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the original authority, post remand, had properly verified and considered the refund claims. Some claims were found within the time limit and were sanctioned, while others were rejected as beyond the prescribed time by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the Larger Bench's interpretation of the relevant date for time limit consideration, aligning with the remand order's directions and the legal principles discussed in the case of CCE vs. Span Infotech.

4. Considering the submissions, the CESTAT order of remand, and the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was valid. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the rejection of certain refund claims as time-barred and affirming the decision based on the interpretation of the relevant date for time limit consideration under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.