2024 (7) TMI 1257 - AT - Service Tax

Refund/ rebate of CENVAT credit - rejection on the grounds that the refund claims are time barred under Notification No.27/2012 - whether the appellants were supplying merely Intermediary Services ? Time Limitation - HELD THAT - It is found that the appellants have complied with the conditions laid down under N/N. 27/2012 in a substantial manner. Refund claims cannot be held to be barred by limitation merely because certain documents have not been appended, more so, for the reasons beyond their control. It is opined that filing of the initial refund claim, substantially complying to the provisions of law and placing on record their claim before the Department, is in time; therefore, it is found that in the instant case, the refund claims are not barred by limitation. Whether the services provided by the appellant fall under Intermediary Services ? - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any findings on the issue; he has simply remanded the case back to the original authority with a direction to give findings on the issue despite the fact that the original authority has given elaborate findings on the issue - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deprived this Bench of an opportunity to analyse the legality of his findings on the issue. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on the issue, it will be in the interest of justice that the case should travel back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to go through the findings given by the original authority and to decide the issue on merits on the basis of his own interpretation of law by giving findings on the issue. Both the appeals are partly allowed holding that the refund/ rebate claims filed by the appellants are not barred by limitation; the appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to give his own findings on the issue as to whether the appellants have Exported Services or have merely provided Intermediary Services .

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claims filed by the appellant are barred by limitation under Notification No.27/2012.
2. Whether the appellants provided only "Intermediary Services" and are not eligible for refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in software publishing and consultancy, filing refund claims for CENVAT credit. The Original Authority rejected the claims as time-barred and for providing intermediary services. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the claims were not time-barred but remanded the case for findings on intermediary services. The appellant argued that non-submission of BRC documents did not make claims time-barred, citing legal precedents. The Department contended that BRC is essential, and the appellants repeatedly delayed filing them. The Tribunal found the appellants filed claims in time, submitted FIRCs as proof of remittances, and BRC delay was due to DGFT's actions. Refund claims were not time-barred as the appellants substantially complied with requirements. Citing the Banswara Syntex Ltd. case, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellants.

Issue 2:
Regarding whether the appellant provided "Intermediary Services," the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide findings, remanding the case despite the original authority's detailed findings. The Tribunal noted this deprived them of analyzing the legality of the Commissioner's decision. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the issue of services provided by the appellants. Both appeals were partly allowed, with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide findings on whether the appellants rendered "Exported Services" or "Intermediary Services" within 12 weeks while ensuring the appellant's right to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the refund claims were not time-barred and remanded the case for a decision on the nature of services provided by the appellants, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in the process.