2014 (3) TMI 78 - AT - Service Tax

Refund / Rebate claim - export of services - rebate claim were rejected on the premise that the appellant has contravened the condition of the said Notification, as they were not registered with the department prior to export and they have not filed their service tax returns before the department. Lastly, their claim of refund is barred by limitation - Held that - Nature of services is they are rendering service on continuous basis without any commencement or terminal pint, and it is difficult to complete with the requirement prior to the date of export, except for the description of services. It was further held that if particular declaration are furnished with the service tax authorities along with documentary evidence are found to be correct, object of filing of declaration would be satisfied. In Textech International P. Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 245 - CESTAT, CHENNAI this Tribunal held that as per Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 a person who is liable for paying service tax is required to apply for registration. Admittedly, the appellant is although providing taxable service but the same is exempted therefore, they are not required to pay service tax, registration is not required. As the appellant is not required to pay service tax, therefore, they are not required to file service tax returns. Relevant date for filing refund in the case of export of service is in the date of receipt of payment of the exported service. as held in the case of Eaton Industries P. Ltd. 2010 (12) TMI 71 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of rebate claim of input services used for export of services.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Compliance with Notification 12/05 for rebate claim.
4. Requirement of registration for service tax.
5. Time limitation for filing refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of their rebate claim for input services used in exporting services. The delay in filing the appeal was due to confusion regarding the number of appeals required as the impugned order contained three Order-in-Originals. The delay was condoned as the main appeal was filed on time, and the additional appeals were submitted promptly upon clarification by the Registry.

2. The appellant, a consulting engineering service provider, used input services for rendering services exported between September 2004 to August 2005. Their rebate claim under Notification 12/05 was rejected for not fulfilling conditions like pre-export registration and filing service tax returns. The appellant argued that the conditions were not mandatory before actual service export, citing the Wipro Ltd. case. They also contended that registration was unnecessary as they provided exempted taxable services, as per Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. The date of receipt of payment for exported services, as per CCE vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd., determined the limitation period for refund claims.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellant's post-export submission of necessary details fulfilled Notification 12/05 requirements, as per the Wipro Ltd. case. Regarding registration, Textech International P. Ltd. established that registration was not mandatory for providers of exempted taxable services. The limitation period for refund claims, as per Eaton Industries case, was determined by the date of payment receipt for exported services. Consequently, the Tribunal held the rebate claims within limitation and allowed the appeals, granting refund to the appellant.

4. The judgment set aside the impugned order, recognizing the appellant's entitlement to refund based on compliance with Notification 12/05, exemption from registration due to providing exempted taxable services, and the correct limitation period for filing refund claims in cases of service export. The appeals were allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.