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 ... Refund claim - relevant date - Rule 5 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 - Whether the relevant date should be taken from the date of invoice or date of FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received? - Held that:- The respondents have filed refund claim for each quarter within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the issue is no longer res-integra and is decided in the case of Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. 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.