2023 (11) TMI 418 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of accumulated credits on inputs received towards export of services - rejection on the ground that export commenced after October 2013 in which input credits accumulated prior to registration of Appellant Company in 2012 is included as refundable amount - other ground for rejection is that refund is claimed for several quarters in one refund claim application - HELD THAT - There is no bar in availing credit before the Company got registered with Service Tax Authority, if the same is utilized for the purpose of generating export output as the only requirement stipulated under Notification 27/2012-CE(NT) is that refund application is to be filed before the Jurisdictional Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under whom the premises of the provider of output service that has exported was registered, as contemplated in Para 3(a)(II) and by the time refund applications were filed, Appellant had its Service Tax registration number. Also, Para 2(a) of the said notification puts a restriction for filling more than one refund application for every quarter and it has become a settled principle of Law that the said restriction would not prohibit claiming of Refund for more than one quarter in one application for refund. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The reason for denial of refund on the ground of limitation by taking into account the dates of export invoices as relevant date is not tenable in law, in view of the Larger Bench findings in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, GOA VERSUS M/S. RATIO PHARMA INDIA PVT LTD 2015 (4) TMI 462 - CESTAT MUMBAI-LB and the subsequent amendment made in conformity to the said finding. Therefore, the apprehension of the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) raised in para 6 of his order that prior to 29.11.2013, export invoices were not serially numbered would be of no consequence to the Appellant s case since, no export benefit is claimed for the prior period nor any refund claim against the said period was filed. The refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in export of services having a purpose to encourage/promote export and earn foreign exchange, minor procedural infraction would not stand in the way of grant of refund and Appellant is, therefore, entitled to get the entire amount of refund claimed for the period from October 2013 to March 2015 except on domestic turnover which was worked out as Rs.1,16,350/- and except an amount of Rs.46,427/- on which it has abandoned its claim. The order to the extent of rejection of CENVAT credit except on domestic turnover and lack of nexus between input and output services, is here by set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of part refund claim by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise against accumulated credits on inputs received towards export of services is challenged in this appeal.

Facts and Arguments:
The Appellant, an exporter of services, filed refund applications for unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated since establishment. The rejection was based on various grounds, including limitation, improper invoices, and non-segregation of domestic turnover. The Appellant contended that the entire opening balance of credit should have been considered, and the restriction on filing more than one refund application for every quarter does not prohibit claiming refund for multiple quarters in one application. The Appellant also argued that the change in company name does not affect the claim for refund of CENVAT credit.

Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal found that there was no bar in availing credit before the Company got registered with the Service Tax Authority if the credit was utilized for generating export output. The restriction on filing more than one refund application for every quarter does not prevent claiming refund for multiple quarters in one application. The denial of refund based on limitation was deemed untenable in law, especially after the amendment following the Ratio Pharma India case. The Tribunal also noted that the change in company name did not impact the claim for refund against CENVAT Credit.

Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the rejection of CENVAT credit except on domestic turnover and lack of nexus between input and output services. The Appellant was entitled to the refund with interest, and the Respondent-Department was directed to pay the same within three months of the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, emphasizing that procedural infractions should not hinder the grant of refund in cases of promoting export and earning foreign exchange. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the purpose behind the refund claims and ensuring that minor procedural issues do not impede the rightful entitlement to refunds.