2017 (1) TMI 233 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of rebate claim - N/N/. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 - Time limitation - Held that - Learned Counsel did not challenge the decision. He further argued that the date of payment of duty is not the last date of the month as has been mentioned in the order but the date on which they make a debit in their Cenvat account. The accounting entry passed in the books was submitted with the office of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate that rebate has been claimed within one year from the date of payment of tax which has not been mentioned by lower authorities. I find that this arguments has not been taken before the lower authorities and relied upon documents were not submitted before them. In order to give a fair chance to Revenue I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh - appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of rebate claim under Notification 11/2005-ST on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The case involves appeals filed by M/s Vodofone Mobile Services Ltd. against the denial of rebate claim under Notification 11/2005-ST due to limitation issues. The appellants argued that the relevant date for availing the benefit of service tax should be the date of payment of service tax, not the last date of the month. They presented evidence from their SAP software to support their argument. However, it was noted that this evidence was not submitted before the lower authorities initially.

The Learned A.R. representing the respondent relied on the impugned order and argued that the Tribunal in the appellant's own case had previously stated that the relevant date for such claims would be the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and legal provisions, including Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which applies to Service Tax refunds as well. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to a reasonable time-limit even if not explicitly mentioned in the law.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Member (Technical) found that the arguments presented by the appellants were not raised before the lower authorities, and the supporting documents were not initially submitted. In the interest of fairness, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Member (Technical) emphasized the need for a fair chance for both parties and decided to keep all issues open while disposing of the appeals by way of remand.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timely submission of evidence and arguments before the authorities, the application of relevant legal provisions to determine time limits for refund claims, and the need for a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter by the adjudicating authority.