9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 914 - AT - Service TaxDenial of refund claim - period of limitation - input services used in export of goods -Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007 - Held that - Under the Notification No. 41/2007 refund was to be filed within sixty days from date of export of the goods. This period of sixty days was increased to one year under Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the benefit of Notification 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009 by treating time-limit of one year for granting the refund. I do not find any infirmity in this finding of Commissioner (Appeals). Officers of Department are governed by the provisions of Acts/Rules and Notification issued under Act/Rules. Therefore Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly invoked provisions of Notification Nos. 41/2007 and 17/2009, dated 1-7-2009 in deciding the appeal - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the refund claimed under Notification No. 41/2007 for service tax paid on sales commission to overseas agents is within the specified time limit. Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s. Addi Industries Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-7-2011, where they had paid Service Tax along with interest for services availed during April 2008 to June 2009. The appellants utilized the services of a commission agent outside India for export orders and paid the commission to overseas agents. Initially, they did not pay the service tax but later deposited it on 31-8-2009. A refund claim was filed under Notification 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, stating that the refund filed within one year from the date of export cannot be considered time-barred, leading to the current appeal. The main issue in this appeal was whether the refund claimed under Notification No. 41/2007 for service tax paid on sales commission to overseas agents was within the stipulated time limit. The Notification granted exemption from service tax on specified services used for export of goods, with a provision for refund. The claim for refund was required to be filed on a quarterly basis within sixty days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the goods were exported. However, this period was extended to one year under Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009. The appellants paid the service tax after the supersession of Notification No. 41/2007 and within the extended time limit of one year as per Notification No. 17/2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied the provisions of both notifications in granting the refund, which was deemed appropriate. The advocate for the appellants argued for a liberal and broader view to be taken in favor of the assessee, especially in export cases. However, it was emphasized that the officers of the Department are bound by the provisions of Acts, Rules, and Notifications issued under them. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully considered and applied the relevant Notifications, i.e., 41/2007 and 17/2009, in deciding the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the order was pronounced on 23-9-2013.
|
