2017 (12) TMI 1497 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate claim - export of services - Time limitation - Section 11B of CEA - Held that - in the present case rebate claims have been filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange which is relevant date for computation of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against common impugned order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) upholding the Orders-in-Original and rejecting the appeals.
- Claiming rebate of service tax paid on exported output services under Notification No.11/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 read with Export of Service Rules, 2005.
- Grounds of limitation for rebate claims based on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Appellant's argument against rejection of rebate claims on limitation grounds.
- Applicability of judicial decisions in similar cases to support the appellant's claims.
- Respondent's defense and reliance on the impugned order.

Analysis:

The appellant filed three appeals against a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) upholding the Orders-in-Original and rejecting the rebate claims for service tax paid on exported output services. The issue revolved around the time limitation for claiming rebates under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claims as time-barred, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. The Commissioner (A) also observed that the rebate claims were filed beyond the one-year period from the date of issuance of export invoices, as specified in Section 11B. The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in law, citing that the time for payment of service tax was not specified in Section 11B and that the decision in GTN Eng. (I) Ltd. was inapplicable to service providers. The appellant relied on the case of Alar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to support their claim that the time limit for rebate should be computed from the date of receipt of consideration, not the date of export invoice.

The learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant contended that the impugned order's reliance on GTN Eng. (I) Ltd. was misplaced, as it pertained to manufacturing, unlike the appellant who provided services. The appellant argued that the rebate claims were filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange, which should be the relevant date for limitation computation. The appellant further supported their argument by citing various judicial decisions, including Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore, Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, and CCE Vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

After considering the submissions of both parties, the Judicial Member found that the impugned order's rejection of the refund claims based on GTN Eng. (I) Ltd. was not sustainable in law. The Judicial Member highlighted that the decision in GTN Eng. (I) Ltd. was specific to manufacturing and not applicable to service providers like the appellant. Moreover, the rebate claims were filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange, which was deemed the relevant date for limitation computation. The Judicial Member, relying on the decisions cited by the appellant, concluded that the impugned order was not legally sound. Consequently, the appeals of the appellant were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.