2016 (6) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

Period of limitation - Admissibility of refund claim of Cenvat credit - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 - Support services of business or commerce - input services received and consumed for export of output services - consideration received in foreign currency in terms of Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Held that - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back in terms of the remand order passed in favour of appellant for the refund appeals filed along with the present appeal by the appellant. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claims on grounds of being time-barred and not meeting prescribed format.
2. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 197/2012 dated 11.04.2012.
3. Remand of the matter for determination of admissible refund amount.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 197/2012 dated 11.04.2012, which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore. The case involved a private limited company engaged in providing IT enabled services related to loan processing for its parent company in the USA. The services provided were classified as 'Support services of business or commerce' and were exported outside India, exempt from service tax under Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The company filed refund claims for input services utilized, but the claims were initially rejected by the department on grounds of being time-barred and not meeting specific document requirements.

2. The appellant filed multiple refund claims seeking a refund of input service tax under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The department directed the appellant to resubmit the claims in the prescribed format, which was done on 22.03.2011. However, the department contended that the claims were time-barred as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, and the appellant had filed claims on a half-yearly basis instead of quarterly. The Tribunal had previously disposed of two appeals related to the same impugned order, setting them aside and remanding the matter for the determination of the admissible refund amount.

3. In light of the previous remand orders for other appeals, the Tribunal decided to remand the present appeal as well. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mangalore and remanded the matter for the determination of the admissible refund amount in accordance with the law. The decision was made to allow the present appeal by way of remand, aligning with the terms and conditions of the previous remand orders for related appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case revolved around the rejection of refund claims on technical grounds, the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, and the subsequent remand of the matter for the determination of the admissible refund amount. The legal intricacies surrounding the time-barred claims and prescribed formats were central to the analysis and decision-making process in this judgment.