2016 (5) TMI 901 - AT - Service Tax

Eligibility of refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - period April 2012 to June 2012 - time barred - Refund claim rejected by interpreting the amended provision as per Notification No. 18/2012-CE(NT) dated 17.03.2012, as though the FIRC received in the month of April 2012, the export has to be considered in the month of March 2012, hence there is no export during the quarter from April 2012 to June 2012. Held that - it was not open for the Commissioner (Appeals) to go into the issues, which is not arising out of the adjudication order. Since, refund was rejected only on time bar and the appellant filed appeal challenging the same, the Commissioner (Appeals) was suppose to decide the appeal of the appellant only on the issue of time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the refund is not time bar. As regard, the refund of ₹ 2,093/- the appellant have produced the corrected invoice wherein the correct address of the appellant is appearing. Therefore, it is found that refund of the appellant being filed within 1 year from the quarter ending is within time limit, hence they are entitled for the refund. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by Commissioner of Service Tax
2. Calculation of time limit for filing refund claim
3. Interpretation of export rules for refund eligibility

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of ?92,363 by the Commissioner of Service Tax. The appellant, engaged in the provision and export of services, had filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2012 to June 2012. The Assistant Commissioner allowed a partial refund but rejected ?92,363 citing reasons like incorrect address on an invoice and time bar due to delay in filing the claim beyond one year. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection stating that there was no export in the relevant quarter, thus denying the refund.

2. The appellant argued that the time limit for filing the refund claim should be calculated from the end of the quarter, not from the date of FIRC receipt. They contended that the export was completed in April 2012, falling within the quarter for the refund claim. The appellant also highlighted that since they exported 100% services, the entire Cenvat Credit availed should be refundable. Additionally, the issue of an incorrect address on an invoice was rectified, making the refund admissible.

3. The Tribunal observed that the refund rejection was initially based on the grounds of time bar, which the Commissioner (Appeals) later ruled as not applicable when considering quarterly filing. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund on different grounds related to the interpretation of export rules based on an amended provision. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have limited the decision to the issue of time bar, as the adjudication order formed the foundation of the case. Since the refund was filed within the one-year limit from the quarter ending and the correct invoice was provided, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to grant the refund.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of refund claim rejection, time limit calculation, and interpretation of export rules, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.