2021 (6) TMI 707 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Rule 5 readwith Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The appellant for abundant quotation paid service tax during the impugned period. Later on, the dispute was settled in favour of the appellant holding that they are not liable to pay service tax for the earlier period on 16.03.2018 and the appellant has filed refund claim within two months of the decision of this Tribunal. In that, if the relevant date for filing the refund claim is 16.03.2018 for the period in question. In terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT , the appellant has filed refund claim within two months from the relevant date. Therefore, the refund claim filed by the appellant is within time. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Rule 5 read with Section 11B of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider and exporter, had a dispute with the revenue regarding liability for service tax on exported services pre-2014. The dispute was resolved in favor of the appellant on 16.03.2018 by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed in March 2018, which was rejected as time-barred for not being filed within one year of service tax payment. The appellant argued that as the liability was declared unconstitutional, Section 11B should not apply, citing various High Court judgments. Alternatively, they claimed the refund was filed within two months of the Tribunal's decision. The Authorized Representative relied on Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court case to argue the refund was time-barred.

The Tribunal noted the undisputed dispute between the appellant and revenue regarding service tax liability on exported services. The appellant paid service tax during the impugned period but was later found not liable. The refund claim was filed within two months of the Tribunal's decision, making it timely according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within the time limit and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.