2019 (1) TMI 976 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - time limitation - relevant date for refund claim - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules - Held that - It is, no doubt, true that the first appellate authority has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, but in view of the observations made in paragraph 9 of the order, the appellate authority will re-examine the matter by considering the date of invoice as the relevant date for calculating the limitation. This, in our opinion, would be contrary to the view expressed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE&CST, Bengaluru Service Tax-I 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE - thus, in respect of export of services, the relevant date for deciding the time limit for claiming refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed on quarterly basis. It is not in dispute that the refund claims were filed on quarterly basis. We, therefore, direct that the adjudicating authority while examining the matter pursuant to order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), will take the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received as the relevant date for determining the time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 rejected on grounds of limitation.
2. Discrepancy in relevant date for refund claims.
3. Interpretation of relevant date for export of services for limitation purposes.
4. Applicability of Larger Bench decision on relevant date determination.
5. Tribunal's direction to adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on relevant date.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 due to limitation issues. The Appellant, registered for various services, filed refund claims totaling to significant amounts for specific periods. The original authority rejected the claims citing limitation reasons related to the timing of filing. The first appellate authority remanded the matter to the original authority, differing on the relevant date for limitation calculation. The Appellant argued that the end of the quarter when the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received should be the relevant date for export of services. This argument was supported by a Larger Bench decision. The Department contended that the issue should be considered by the adjudicating authority on remand.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted the remand but disagreed with the first appellate authority's view on the relevant date determination for limitation. Citing the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal held that for export of services, the end of the quarter when FIRC is received should be the relevant date for limitation calculation in quarterly refund claims. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider this relevant date and decide the matter within three months from the date of order receipt. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeal was allowed based on this determination. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the principles established in the Larger Bench decision, emphasizing the importance of the relevant date for limitation calculations in refund claims under the Cenvat Rules.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the relevant date for export of services in the context of limitation for refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It underscores the significance of adhering to the determined relevant date, as established by precedent decisions, to ensure consistency and fairness in the adjudication of refund claims. The Tribunal's direction to the adjudicating authority provides clear guidance on applying the relevant date principle in similar cases, emphasizing adherence to established legal interpretations for uniformity and effective resolution of disputes related to refund claims under the Cenvat Rules.