Appellant granted cause-title change. Date for CENVAT Credit refund clarified. No interest on rejected claims.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's request to change the cause-title. It determined that the relevant date for refund claims of unutilized CENVAT Credit in case of export of services is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The Tribunal clarified that no interest is payable on rejected refund claims, as per the applicable procedure.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Change in appellant's name and amendment of cause-title.
2. Interpretation of time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Relevant date for refund claims of unutilized CENVAT Credit in case of export of services.
4. Payment of interest on rejected refund claims.

Summary of the Judgment:

1. Change in appellant's name and amendment of cause-title:
The appellant requested a change in the cause-title from "Ad2pro Media Solutions Private Limited" to "Ad2pro Global Creative Solutions Private Limited." The Tribunal acceded to this request and allowed the petitions for amending the cause-title.

2. Interpretation of time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appeals involved the partial sanction and rejection of refund claims based on the interpretation of the time-bar under Section 11B. The refund sanctioning authorities treated export invoices realized during the quarter but dated more than one year as time-barred, leading to partial rejection of the refund claims. The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) upheld this partial rejection.

3. Relevant date for refund claims of unutilized CENVAT Credit in case of export of services:
The core issue was determining the 'relevant date' under Section 11B for refund claims of unutilized CENVAT Credit in case of export of services. The Tribunal referenced the Larger Bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bengaluru v. M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that the relevant date is the date of receipt of consideration (FIRC). The Tribunal concluded that the relevant date for filing refund claims should be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received.

4. Payment of interest on rejected refund claims:
The appellant requested interest on the rejected refund claims. However, the Tribunal noted that the procedure for refund claims under Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.) allows for the re-crediting of the amount not sanctioned. Since accumulated unutilized CENVAT Credit does not carry interest, the Tribunal found no provision for payment of interest in these circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, confirming that the relevant date for refund claims is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, and no interest is payable on rejected refund claims.

---