Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat Chennai
Date:-30-05-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 30 May 2023
Parties: M/s. R.K. Industries IV Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Facts –
- The Appellant, M/s. R.K. Industries IV, are engaged in manufacture of ready-made garments and filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for refund of service tax paid by them on services provided to them by Custom House Agents, Technical Testing and Analysis Agencies.
- The refunds were rejected on the ground that it is time-barred and conditions to notifications are not fulfilled and in certain invoices the address of the Head office at Guindy was mentioned and the refund claim has been filed by the manufacturing unit situated at Pallavaram.
Issue –
- Whether the refund claims are time barred? Whether the refund claims are fulfilled the conditions of the notification?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that as per para 2(f) the notification No.17/2009, the refund has to be filed within a period of one year. The entire claim for a quarter cannot be rejected merely because few of the shipping bills pertaining to that quarter is beyond the period of one year. The invoices which are filed within the period of one year ought to have been considered for the different quarters. This issue is therefore required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority who is directed to look into the matter as to the shipping bills which are within the time limit of one year.
- Even if the services are used for testing of raw materials such services have nexus with the manufacturing of finished products and therefore eligible for credit/refund. Further, the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 when the definition of “input services” had a wide ambit as it included the words “activities relating to business”. It is also to be stated that there is no condition attached to the notification with regard to refund claim in regard to testing and analysis services. Refund cannot be rejected.
- The appellants furnished the address of their Head office to the service provider as it happened to be the Head office. The service provider mentioned such address in the invoices and also for the reason that they received payment from the Head office of the appellant. The Department does not dispute that the appellant has received the services as per the invoices. When there is no dispute with regard to the services availed and the service tax paid, the rejection of refund is without any basis.
- Hence the appeals are allowed partly.
Download Case Law
