2018 (6) TMI 999 - AT - Service Tax

Court rules on refund claim date for appeals, upholding impugned order.

The court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals and disposing of any stay applications. The issue regarding the relevant date for filing ... Relevant date for refund under Rule 5 - refund claim under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) - end of the quarter wherein FIRC is received - time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944Relevant date for refund under Rule 5 - refund claim under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) - end of the quarter wherein FIRC is received - time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) is the date of invoice, the date of FIRC, or the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, and whether the respondents' refund claims were within the statutory time limit. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied its Larger Bench precedent in CCE & SST, Bengaluru vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., holding that the relevant date for refund under Rule 5 and the Notification is the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received. On the facts, the respondents filed claims for the specified quarters within one year from the end of each respective quarter. Applying the Larger Bench ratio, the claims therefore fell within the period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the binding Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal found the issue no longer res integra and concluded that the refund claims were time barred only if filed after one year from the end of the quarter; since these claims were filed within that period, they were within time.The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals and disposing of stay applications, on the ground that the relevant date is the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received and the respondents' claims were filed within the statutory time limit under Section 11B.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal applied its Larger Bench ruling that the relevant date for refund under Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) is the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received; on the facts the refund claims for the listed quarters were filed within one year from the end of each quarter and thus within the time prescribed by Section 11B, leading to dismissal of the appeals and disposal of stay applications. Issues Involved:Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012.Analysis:The issue in the present case revolves around determining the relevant date for filing a refund claim under Rule 5 along with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. The key question is whether this date should be based on the date of invoice, date of FIRC, or the end of the quarter when the FIRC is received.The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the counsel for the respondents referred to the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE& SST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the judgment in the case of Commissioner, CGST vs. Morgan Stanley India Services Pvt. Ltd. These references were made to support the position that the issue at hand has been conclusively settled by previous judicial decisions.Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and a thorough review of the records, it was observed that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had definitively ruled that the relevant date for refund purposes under Rule 5 and the associated notification is the end of the quarter in which FIRCs are received. In the current case, the respondents had timely filed refund claims for each quarter within one year from the end of the respective quarter, thus complying with the prescribed time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the issue was deemed settled in light of the Larger Bench judgment in the Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. case.As a result of the above analysis, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. Any stay applications were also disposed of accordingly. The decision was pronounced in court, bringing closure to the matter at hand.