2017 (2) TMI 383 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR read with N/N. 27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012 - Time bar - Held that - the relevant period of one year starts from the end of the quarter for which the export realization has taken place - the refund claims are filed in respect of exports pertaining to quarter January 2013 to March 2013 on 13.2.2014 - refund claim filed within the relevant period of one year - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Department's appeal against the order setting aside refund claims as time-barred.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals filed by the department against an order passed by the Commissioner (A) setting aside the Orders-in-Original and directing verification of rejected refund claims. The respondent, a service provider, had filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used in export. The department issued show-cause notices citing discrepancies and rejected the claims as time-barred, filed after one year from the date of export. The Commissioner (A) disagreed, citing relevant dates as the receipt of inward remittances or consideration paid, not the date of export. The Commissioner relied on various CESTAT judgments to support the decision that the claims were not time-barred.

The department argued that the refund claims were beyond the prescribed time limit as per Section 11B, which requires claims to be filed within one year from the relevant date, defined as one year from the date of export or invoice. However, the respondent's consultant defended the order, highlighting conditions from Notification No.27/2012 and Service Tax Rules, stating that export is complete only after realization of export proceeds. The consultant supported the Commissioner's decision based on Tribunal judgments.

After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's interpretation of relevant dates for refund claims, as supported by previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal dismissed all three departmental appeals, affirming the decision that the refund claims were not time-barred, as the relevant period starts from the end of the quarter in which export realization occurred. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles and precedents established in previous cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal provisions and precedents led to the dismissal of the department's appeals, affirming the Commissioner's decision regarding the timing of refund claims in relation to export realization dates. The judgment emphasized the importance of following statutory provisions and interpreting them in line with established legal principles and precedents to determine the validity of refund claims in such cases.