2025 (7) TMI 1543 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of unutilized credit of input services - time limitation - rejection of limitation of time prescribed u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 made applicable to service tax matters as per Section 83 of the Finance Act 1944 - HELD THAT - It is seen that a Larger Bench of this Tribunal reported in C.C.E Cus. S.T. Bengaluru v. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE - LB has examined and answered the question whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of filing of refund claims is to be applied from the date of receipt of payment for export of services or can be considered from the end of the quarter in which such payments have been received. Since the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has 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. it is found that the dispute in law in this matter is squarely settled in the appellant s favour. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the refund claim of unutilized credit of input services in export of services is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.What is the relevant date for the purpose of limitation under Section 11B for filing refund claims in export of services-date of export or date of realization of foreign exchange'Whether the amendment in Notification No.14/2016 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, prescribing the period of limitation from the date of realization of foreign exchange, applies retrospectively to refund claims filed before that date.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The refund claim was improperly rejected on the ground of limitation, as the relevant date for the purposes of Section 11B in export of services cases is the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is received, not the date of export.The amendment introduced by Notification No.14/2016 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, which prescribes reckoning the limitation period from the date of realization of foreign exchange, does not have retrospective application; however, the Larger Bench decision effectively provides the same benefit for claims filed on a quarterly basis before the amendment.The impugned orders upholding the rejection of refund claims on limitation grounds are set aside, and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

RATIONALE:

The legal framework centers on Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No.27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, and the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.The Larger Bench of the Tribunal interpreted Section 11B's limitation period constructively in the context of export of services, noting the absence of explicit provision for export of services within Section 11B and relying on the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Export of Services Rules, 2005, which define export completion upon receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange.The Tribunal held that the relevant date is the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received for quarterly refund claims, aligning with the objective of facilitating refunds of unutilized Cenvat credit.The decision respects the Supreme Court's guideline in Vatika Township that beneficial amendments may be applied retrospectively, but provisions imposing liability apply prospectively; thus, the amendment notification dated 01.03.2016 is prospective, but the Larger Bench ruling provides equivalent relief for earlier claims.Precedents from the Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court support the interpretation that receipt of foreign exchange is the relevant date for export of services refund claims.