2015 (9) TMI 687 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had exported the services and are claiming the refund of the service tax paid on the input services, which are used for providing such export service. It is also undisputed that the refund claims have been filed on 26/03/2010 and that foreign remittance have come during the period April to June 2009. - Consultant was correct in stating that this judgement of the Tribunal 2013 (7) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT). - impugned orders of rejection of refund claim of ₹ 11,41,592/- on the ground of limitation, are liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim based on limitation period for filing the claim.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of rejecting a refund claim of a specific amount filed by the appellant for service tax credit used for export services during a particular period. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority citing limitation grounds. The appellant argued that the refund application was filed within the stipulated time frame based on the foreign exchange realization received during a specific period. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which allow for refund of input services used in providing exported services. The Tribunal referred to relevant notifications and rules to determine the conditions and limitations for claiming such refunds.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and concluded that the appellant had indeed exported services and was claiming a refund for service tax paid on input services used for such exports. It was established that the refund claims were filed within the required time frame based on the date of foreign exchange realization, as per the Tribunal's previous judgments and relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the export of services to be in accordance with the Export of Service Rules, 2005, for claiming refunds under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The relevant date for export of services was determined as the date of receipt of foreign exchange in India, as per the Export of Service Rules, 2005, and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the judgment in a previous case had been upheld by the High Court, further supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders rejecting the refund claim based on limitation grounds and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of complying with the prescribed procedures and timelines for claiming refunds under the applicable rules and notifications, ultimately ensuring a fair and just outcome for the appellant.