9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 437 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - export of services - Invoices pertained to two different quarters - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that only one claim of Refund for every quarter should be made - HELD THAT - From the above Provisions of N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01/07/2013 and Explanations thereto, it is seen that the only condition imposed is that the Appellant should file one refund claim per quarter. This means that within the same quarter, the Appellant should not file more than one refund claim. This Notification nowhere mentions as to which of the Invoices pertaining to each quarter can be considered or not considered. Therefore, there is no condition about non-inclusion of the previous quarter invoices in the next quarter refund claim. In fact, this condition has been placed so that the assessee does not make more than one claim per quarter by resorting to monthly refund claims. There are no error in the Appellant filing the refund claim by adding the Invoices of the previous quarter which were not used for claiming the refund claim during the previous quarter. The other condition is that the refund claim shall be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of Service Tax was made by SEZ Unit. In the present Appeal, it is not the case of the Department that the Appellant has filed the Appeal after one year. In the case law of M/S SRF LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -LTU DELHI 2016 (12) TMI 1471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the very issue was before the Tribunal which has held that Since Clause (f) is procedural in nature and the appellant in this case has complied with the statutory provisions of filing the refund application within one year from the date of payment of Service Tax to the service provider, in my opinion, rejection of refund claim of Rs. 4,64,114/- by the authorities below is not in conformity with the conditions laid down in Notification dated 1-7-2013. Since there is no violation of the conditions imposed under Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. dated 01/07/2013 and as the present issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRF, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the eligibility of a SEZ Unit for a refund claim for services exported, specifically regarding the inclusion of invoices from different quarters in the claim. Summary: The Appellants, a SEZ Unit, filed a refund claim for services exported during April 2014 to March 2015, seeking Rs.2,60,000 for the quarter ending September 2014. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund, but the Department appealed, arguing that two Invoices from April 2014 should not be included in the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, stating that only one claim per quarter should be made. The Appellant disagreed, citing Notification No. 12/2013-ST and a relevant case law. The Tribunal considered the Notification's conditions, emphasizing the requirement of one claim per quarter but found no restriction on including previous quarter invoices. Referring to the case law, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, stating that the refund claim adhered to the statutory provisions and should be allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the Appeal and granting consequential relief as per the law.
|
