Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Cestat-Ahmedabad
Date:-10-06-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Order Date- 10 June 2022
Facts:
- The appellant, M/s Balkrishna Textiles Pvt Ltd, filed the five refund claims of accumulated credit during the period April 2008 to March 2009 in respect of service tax paid on Commission Agent’s service. The service provider i.e. Commission Agent is located outside India and his services were used for export of goods.
- The Appellant submits that the refund claim is required to be filed within six months from the end of quarter during which the goods were exported. Since the Service tax was paid by the appellant on 31.03.2010 and 21.04.2010, five refund claims for Rs. 9,56,645/- were filed for such service tax which are not barred by limitation.
- The Department has issued five Show Cause Notices contending that appellant has not fulfilled the conditions as laid down in the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The said refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Further, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) an appeal is filed before this tribunal.
Issue:
- Whether the rejection of refund claim on the ground of time limitation is valid?
Order:
- The Tribunal observed that there is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
- The Tribunal noted that similar issue came up before them in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, KA Versus m/s Pacific Leather Finishers wherein reliance was placed on the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del) and it was held that limitation cannot start to run unless right to receive a claim or refund crystallized.
- Further, the Tribunal observed that the issue has already been settled in favor of the appellant wherein it has been held that the ‘relevant date ‘for computing six months periods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST to be taken the date when service tax paid and not first day of month following quarter in which export made.
- In view of the same, it was held that the refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of limitation. Appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential relief.
Download Case Law
