9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1234 - AT - Service TaxRejection of refund claim - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - export of services under Business Auxiliary Services - denial on the ground of limitation as also that services are rendered to a person situated abroad in respect of the goods located in India - whether the services are taxable in India or not? - Held that - the issue is no more res integra, Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Vs. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (5) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , has held that if services were rendered to such foreign clients located abroad, then, the act can be termed as export of service - Service Tax is a value added tax which in turn is destination based consumption tax in the sense that it taxes non-commercial activities and is not a charge on the business, but on the consumer, then, it is leviable only on services provided within the country. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant/assessee and subsequent refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for services exported under Business Auxiliary Services. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of refund claims filed by the appellant/assessee and the Revenue regarding the CENVAT credit availed and subsequent refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for services exported under Business Auxiliary Services. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claims on grounds of limitation and services rendered to a person abroad in relation to goods in India. The first appellate authority modified the order, allowing some refund applications while remanding others for reconsideration. The appellant's counsel referenced the case law establishing the limitation period starting from the receipt of the first Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). The Departmental Representative contested the services being considered export of services due to being rendered in India. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records to address each appeal separately. Appeal No. ST/85552/15: The appeal involved refund applications for specific periods. The Tribunal found that some refund claims were within the limitation period based on FIRCs received, while others were rejected due to being time-barred. The appellant was granted a refund for certain periods but rejected for others based on limitation. Appeal No. ST/85553/15: This appeal concerned refund claims for a particular period, which were rejected as time-barred since the claims were filed beyond the stipulated period from the date of FIRCs. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation. Appeal No. ST/85391/15: The first appellate authority remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, which the appellant did not challenge. This appeal was dismissed as not pressed. Appeal No. ST/90148 & 90149/14: The Revenue filed these appeals contesting the refund claims sanctioned by the impugned order. The Tribunal examined the nature of services rendered by the appellant/assessee and concluded that the services of inspection of goods in India for a client abroad constituted export of services. The Tribunal referenced a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, supporting the view that such services could be considered export of services. The appeals filed by the Revenue were found to lack merit based on the analysis of the services provided. In conclusion, all appeals were disposed of based on the findings related to the refund claims and the export of services as discussed in the judgment.
|
