2014 (12) TMI 206 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - export of Business Auxiliary Service - relevant date - date of payment of service tax or date of export - Held that - Respondents have relied on Tribunal judgements in the case of Mahindra World City vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I 2013 (7) TMI 590 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE 2014 (3) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI . I also note that DGST in the booklet Frequently asked question on service tax dt. 16.09.2011 in response to question 6.3 has clarified that the relevant date for calculation of limitation period in respect of filing refund claims relating to service tax is the date of payment of service tax. Therefore, respondents cannot be put to terms in the face of this Circular which has not been withdrawn. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing rebate claim under notification no. 11/2005-ST.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for sanction of refund under Explanation (B)(f) of Section 11B.
3. Treatment of service as export under Rule 3 of the Export of Services Rules.
4. Reliance on Tribunal judgments and circulars in support of the claim.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the time limitation for filing a rebate claim under notification no. 11/2005-ST. The respondent, engaged in Business Auxiliary Service, filed a refund claim of &8377; 24,05,495/- under this notification, citing export of services and receipt of foreign exchange. The Revenue contended that a portion of the claim was time-barred as it was filed after one year from the date of realization of export proceeds.

2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the relevant date for sanction of refund as per Explanation (B)(f) of Section 11B. The respondent argued that the rebate claim was filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax, which they claimed to be the relevant date as per the law. They relied on Rule 3 of the Export of Services Rules, stating that services are considered exports if payment is received in convertible foreign exchange.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted the reliance placed by the respondent on previous Tribunal judgments, such as Mahindra World City and Vodafone Cellular Ltd., to support their interpretation of the relevant date for refund. Additionally, reference was made to a DGST booklet clarifying the calculation of the limitation period for filing refund claims related to service tax, which emphasized the date of payment of service tax as crucial.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order-in-appeal in favor of the respondent. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant date for refund sanction as per the law and supported by Tribunal judgments and official circulars. The Circular's clarification on the limitation period further reinforced the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent, concluding the case in their favor.