2017 (7) TMI 413 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - commission paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism - time limitation - Held that - as regards as the refund claim for the quarter ended June 2008 the refund claim was filed 30.12.2008 that it is 6 months from date of the quarter ended and as per N/N. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 the time period for filing the refund claims was extended from 60 days to 6 months in N/N. 41/2007-ST which would mean that this refund claim for the quarter ended June 2008 filed in time - As regards as other refund claims in other three appeals they were filed within 1 year date of export is not in dispute and the period which has been prescribed for filing the export claim under the N/N. 17/2009-ST (1 year) was applicable to the refund claim for the earlier period also - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection on the grounds of limitation and lack of documentary evidence.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals raised a common question of law regarding the rejection of refund claims of the appellant, engaged in the manufacture and export of Cotton yarn, under the heads of 'Transportation of Goods by Road Service' and 'Business Auxiliary Service.'
2. The appellant filed refund claims for service tax paid to commission agents abroad, under the reverse charge mechanism, as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities rejected the claims citing the absence of necessary documents and being beyond the prescribed time limits.
3. The First Appellate Authority acknowledged the submission of required documentary evidence by the appellant but rejected the claims based on the ground of limitation.
4. The appellant argued that the refund claims were not belatedly filed, citing Notification No.17/2009-ST extending the time period from 6 months to 1 year. Precedents like Knitex Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Havells India Ltd., Pacific Leather Finishers, and National Steel Agro Industries Ltd. supported the extension of the time period for filing refund claims.
5. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, determining that the refund claim for a specific quarter was filed within the prescribed time limit. For other claims, filed within 1 year of export, the Tribunal relied on precedents like Pacific Leather Finishers and National Steel Agro Industries Ltd. to establish that the extended time period applied retroactively.
6. Citing the decisions in Sony India Ltd. and previous Tribunal rulings, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, granting the respondent the entitlement to consequential benefits.
7. Considering the legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found the impugned orders unsustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, legal precedents relied upon, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant.