2016 (2) TMI 657 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - period of limitation - export of services - Notification No. 11/2005 - ST - The period covered for the rebate was August 2005 to January 2006 and the application for refund was filed on 29.6.2007. - Held that - A combined reading of Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Notification 11/2005 -ST makes it clear that the rebate scheme under the said rules is a self-contained scheme and it nowhere invites the condition of one year for filing the application for rebate. - rejection of the appellants rebate claim on the ground of time-bar is not sustainable - refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim under Rule 5 of Export Service Rules 2005 due to time-barred application.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order dated 27.8.2009, which upheld the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 13,59,338 under Rule 5 of Export Service Rules 2005. The rebate claim covered the period from August 2005 to January 2006, with the application for refund submitted on 29.6.2007. The primary adjudicating authority rejected the claim as time-barred since it was filed after one year from the payment of service tax.

The appellant argued that the rebate claim was made under Notification No. 11/2005 - ST, which did not specify any limitation period for filing rebate claims. Citing judgments from the Madras High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, the appellant contended that the absence of a time limit in the notification meant the claim could not be rejected as time-barred.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that even in the absence of a time limit in the notification, the one-year time limit for refunds/rebates under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, made applicable to service tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, should apply. Therefore, the rebate claim was rightly rejected as time-barred.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and noted that Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, only required the fulfillment of conditions specified in the notification for rebate claims. As the concerned Notification No. 11/2005 - ST did not prescribe any time limit during the relevant period, the Tribunal concluded that the rebate scheme was self-contained and did not impose a one-year time limit for filing rebate applications.

Referring to judgments from the Madras High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, and Delhi High Court, the Tribunal found that similar cases involving rebate claims under different rules and notifications had been decided in favor of the appellants due to the absence of a prescribed time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the appellant's rebate claim on the grounds of being time-barred was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.