2017 (5) TMI 1349 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - scope of input services - services used in the export of goods - time limitation - whether the refund claim of ₹ 6,04,051/- is barred by limitation? - N/N. 5/2006-CE(NT) - Held that - the Notification specifically prescribed that the period of limitation as prescribed u/s 11B of CEA, 1944 would be applicable to refunds filed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - it is not clear when the remittance for export of services had been received by the appellant. Therefore, for this limited purpose of calculation of period of limitation and consequently, the amount of refund, the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority - matter on remand. Whether the claim of ₹ 18,58,545/- is eligible as Input Services being used in the export of finished goods? - Held that - these services viz., Rent a Cab Services, Catering Service (Canteen), Mobile/Telephone Service, Courier Service, Advertising and Marketing Service, Professional Service, Banking Service- HP Finance Service are held to be Input Service - reliance placed in the case of M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise And Service Tax, Noida 2015 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that - the credit availed on the service tax paid in relation to these Input Services are admissible. Appeal allowed - part matter decided in favor of assessee and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim of ?6,04,051/- is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the claim of ?18,58,545/- is eligible as 'Input Services' used in the export of finished goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of limitation and eligibility of services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The appellant contended that the limitation should be computed from the date of receipt of remittance towards the export of services, not the date of export. The Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, the Notification specified that the limitation under Sec. 11B of CEA, 1944 applies to refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Referring to the judgment in GTN Engg (I) Ltd, the Tribunal held that the limitation is applicable, setting aside the previous order.

2. The appellant argued that the refund claimed on export of services should consider the date of receipt of foreign remittance as the 'relevant date.' Citing the case of BECHTEL India P Ltd, the Tribunal agreed that for export of services, the relevant date is the receipt of foreign exchange in India. As the claims were filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange, they were considered timely. However, due to unclear records on when the remittance was received, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for calculation of the limitation period. Regarding the claim of ?18,58,545/- on various services, the Tribunal found these services to be 'Input Services' based on previous Tribunal judgments referenced by the appellant, and no contradictory decision was presented by the Revenue. Therefore, the credit availed on service tax paid for these services was deemed admissible. The appeal was disposed accordingly.