2024 (9) TMI 1081 - AT - Service Tax

Rebate of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods - period from July 2012 to December 2013 - Rejection of rebate claims filed by the appellant on the ground that they have violated the condition of N/N. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and N/N. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003, in as much as the Granite Blocks manufactured by the appellant were directly exported from the Quarry without getting processed from the premises of the EOU - rejection also on the ground that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies - time limitation. HELD THAT - The appellant has claimed rebate in respect of services such as transportation charges, stuffing of cargo, CHA, THC etc. - It is found there is no allegation either in the Notice or in the impugned order that these services were not used in connection with export of goods. It is observed that the only condition prescribed in N/N. 41/2012 for allowing the rebate is that the specified services should be utilized in the export of goods. The proceedings pending before appellate authority for violation of condition of Notifications 51/2003 and 21/2003 cannot be a reason for rejecting the rebate claims. Once it is established that the specific services were utilized in connection with the export of goods, the appellant would be eligible for the rebate as provided under the Notification 41/2012 - In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the export of goods. Also there is no dispute regarding utilization of the specified services in the goods exported. Accordingly, the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in 41/2012 for availing the rebate. Thus, the rejection of rebate claims on account of non-fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 51/2003 dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 21/2003 dated 31.06.2003 is legally not sustainable. Allegation of non-production of documents for the purpose of processing the rebate claim, such as Original invoices, Self certification on input services, FRIC/BRC copies etc. - HELD THAT - The appellant has to explain before the authorities that they have furnished all documents required for processing the rebate claims. For this purpose, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the documents. Time limitation - HELD THAT - The claim was originally filed on 28.06.2013, which is within the period of 1 year from the date of export. However, when some clarification was asked for from the appellant and the claim was resubmitted on 13.09.2013, the Adjudicating Authority has considered the re-submission date of 13.09.2013 as the date of filing of the claim and concluded that the claim was hit by the bar of limitation - the rebate claim was originally filed on 28.06.2013, which was within the period of one year from the date of export. The date of re-submission is not the date of filing of the rebate claim - the claim has been filed within the time period of 1 year from the date of export and it is not hit by limitation of time. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claims filed under Notification No.41/2012
2. Allegations of violation of Customs Notifications
3. Rejection of rebate claims by the Deputy Commissioner
4. Upholding of rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals)
5. Grounds for appeal by the Appellant
6. Non-submission of required documents
7. Time bar issue in one of the rebate claims

Analysis:

The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit, filed rebate claims under Notification No.41/2012 for service tax paid on specified services used for exporting goods. The Department issued Show Cause Notices alleging violation of Customs Notifications and non-submission of essential documents. The Deputy Commissioner rejected all rebate claims, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeals against the rejection.

The appellant argued that they fulfilled all conditions under Notification No.41/2012 and should be eligible for the rebate claims. They contended that the pending proceedings for violation of Customs Notifications should not affect rebate claims if all conditions for availing rebate were met. The appellant also addressed the non-submission of documents issue, stating that all required documents were submitted to the department.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the appellant had indeed utilized specified services for exporting goods, meeting the conditions of Notification No.41/2012. The tribunal ruled that pending proceedings for violation of other Notifications cannot be a basis for rejecting rebate claims if specified services were utilized for export. The tribunal directed the matter to be remanded for verification of documents submitted by the appellant.

Regarding the time bar issue in one of the rebate claims, the tribunal determined that the claim was filed within the one-year period from the date of export, rejecting the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion of time limitation. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the rebate claims, remanded the matter for document verification, and confirmed that the time bar issue was not applicable.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed all five appeals filed by the appellant, stating that they were eligible for the rebate claims under Notification No.41/2012, directing verification of documents, and dismissing the time bar issue in one of the claims.