2011 (3) TMI 193 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Refund - 100% EOU - Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 - Held that - As regards the quarterly filing of refund claims and its applicability, since no bar is provided in the notification, there should not be any objection in allowing refund of credit of the past period in subsequent quarters. - It is possible that during certain quarters, there may not be any exports and therefore the exporter does not file any claim. However, he receives inputs/input services during this period. - Refund claim during subsequent quarters allowed Photocopies of Invoice / address on the documents - credit cannot be allowed against photocopies of documents which are not prescribed under Rule 9 of CCR - The admissibility to credit in dispute for the reason that the documents are not addressed to the respondents is remanded to the Original Authority for examination afresh - The appeals filed by the revenue are disposed

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Refund claims of Service Tax by a 100% EOU.
3. Eligibility for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Disallowance of credit against certain documents.
5. Interpretation of Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006.
6. Settlement of similar dispute in a previous case.
7. Application of CBEC Circular on refund claims.
8. Admissibility of credit against specific documents.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeals
The Revenue filed miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals, which were supplementary to an earlier appeal. The delay was condoned after hearing both sides.

Issue 2: Refund claims of Service Tax by a 100% EOU
The 100% EOU, engaged in silk fabric production and export, claimed refund of Service Tax paid on various services as input services for manufacturing export goods. The Commissioner (A) allowed most appeals except for certain credits against debit advices.

Issue 3: Eligibility for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
The Revenue challenged the refund claiming that input services were not used in goods exported, citing Rule 5 of CCR. The Tribunal considered a previous case where it was held that credit admissible in one month could be claimed in preceding or succeeding months. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4: Disallowance of credit against certain documents
The Original Authority denied credit for documents not related to the unit at Mysore. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The Revenue also raised concerns about credits taken in excess or against unspecified documents.

Issue 5: Interpretation of Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006
The Revenue relied on conditions 4 & 5 of the notification to argue for restrictions on refund of unutilized input service credit based on export turnover. The Tribunal considered these conditions in the context of the case.

Issue 6: Settlement of similar dispute in a previous case
The assessee cited a previous case where a similar dispute was resolved in their favor, emphasizing the eligibility for refund even with a time lag between payment and claim.

Issue 7: Application of CBEC Circular on refund claims
The Tribunal referenced a CBEC Circular allowing refund of credit of past periods in subsequent quarters if no exports were made, supporting the assessee's claim for refund.

Issue 8: Admissibility of credit against specific documents
The Tribunal held that credit cannot be allowed against photocopies or documents not prescribed under CCR. The challenge regarding documents addressed to the Bangalore office was upheld, requiring verification of document relevance. The dispute over credit against certain services was resolved in favor of the assessee based on previous Tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, the appeals filed by the Revenue were disposed of, with one issue remanded to the Original Authority for further examination. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions, previous cases, and relevant circulars.