2016 (4) TMI 201 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Rejection of refund claim - Service tax paid on input services for the period July 2011 to January 2012 and February 2012 to June 2012 - Engaged in providing Pre-publishing Services relating to E-Publishing and are registered under the category of providing Information Technology Software Services - Appellant availed various input services for rendering export of services - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay of one month on showing the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Further the Hon ble Apex Court has laid down liberal approach for condoning the delay. Since the matter has been dismissed only on time barred aspect and not on merits the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to be decided on merits. - Matter remanded back

Issues:
1. Refund claims rejection by Assistant Commissioner.
2. Appeals filed before Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed on grounds of limitation.
3. Disallowance of certain cenvat credit by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Delay in filing appeals before Tribunal.
5. Arguments regarding time limitation for filing appeals.
6. Comparison of previous Tribunal decisions.
7. Interpretation of Cenvat credit rules post-amendment.
8. Remand of appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in Pre-publishing Services, filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims leading to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Refunds for different periods were involved, with some claims allowed and others disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the merits, citing limitation issues. The appellant contended that the delay in filing appeals was within the condonable period due to recent amendments in filing timelines. The appellant relied on case laws to support their argument and highlighted previous Tribunal decisions in their favor.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed certain cenvat credit availed by the appellant on specific services while allowing credit on others. The Tribunal reviewed the disallowed credits and the arguments presented by both parties regarding the eligibility of these credits post-amendment to Rule 2 (i) w.e.f. 01.04.2011.

4. The Tribunal deliberated on the delay in filing appeals and the arguments put forth by both parties. The appellant emphasized the change in appeal filing timelines post-amendment and cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance. The respondent argued for the dismissal of appeals due to lack of sufficient reasons for the delay.

5. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the time limitation for filing appeals and the implications of recent amendments. Both parties presented their cases regarding the filing timelines and relied on legal precedents to support their positions.

6. The Tribunal reviewed the comparative statements of previous appeals disposed of by the Tribunal to assess the consistency in decisions. Both parties referenced previous Tribunal decisions and orders to strengthen their arguments on the current appeals.

7. The interpretation of Cenvat credit rules post-amendment was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal analyzed the impact of the rule changes on the eligibility of certain services for availing cenvat credit and the relevance of earlier decisions in light of the amended rules.

8. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays and the need for a liberal approach in such cases. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further consideration on merits without delving into the time-bar aspect.

← Previous Next →