2018 (9) TMI 647 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - power of the Commissioner to remand the matter to the original authority - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - export of services - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification 5/2006 - Held that - Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Associated Hotels Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 406 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand the case back to the original authority for de novo adjudication - there is no infirmity in the impugned order remanding the case back to the original authority and consequently all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Held that - This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE & CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Larger Bench has held that the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules can be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC s received in cases where refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Power of Commissioner to remand the matter to the original authority.
2. Determination of the relevant date for computing the time limit for refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. Power of Commissioner to remand the matter:
The judgment dealt with six appeals, three filed by the assessee and three by the Revenue against a common impugned order. The case involved the appellant engaged in software design and development activities for its parent company as a 100% EOU under the STPI scheme. The appellant received various input services for providing output services exported without duty payment and filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, questioning the nexus between input and output services. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's power to remand, citing Section 35A of the Central Excise Act 1944. The judgment referenced a Tribunal decision and a High Court ruling (Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Associated Hotels Ltd.) to establish that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed has the power to remand cases. Consequently, the appeals by the assessee were dismissed.

2. Determination of the relevant date for time limit calculation:
Regarding the Revenue's appeals, the issue revolved around the determination of the relevant date for computing the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) calculated the time limit from the last date of the quarter, contrary to the Revenue's stance of starting from the date of export of services or the first export invoice. The judgment referred to a Larger Bench decision (CCE & CST, Bangalore Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.) dated 09.02.2018, which established that the end of the quarter could be considered the relevant date for time limit calculation in cases of quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed based on this interpretation.

Overall, the judgment clarified the Commissioner's power to remand cases and provided a definitive understanding of the relevant date for computing time limits on refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, settling these issues based on legal precedents and interpretations.