2017 (2) TMI 1078 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - whether the refund of rebate of the tax paid on input services is to be allowed to respondent or otherwise? Held that - rebate claims are filed as per N/N. 11/2005-ST dated 19th April 2005. The said notification is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The said notification does not specify any time limit for fling rebate claims. In the absence of any time limit in the notification, reliance on provisions of Section 11B to reject the refund claims as time barred seems to be incorrect. Similar issue of rejection of rebate claims under N/N. 19/2004-CE dated 6th September 2004, was contested before Apex Court in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt Ltd 2015 (4) TMI 118 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which was dismissed by Apex Court holding that in the absence of any prescription of time limit in notification, the rebate claims cannot be rejected under Section 11B. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the refund of rebate of the tax paid on input services is to be allowed to respondent or not.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the rebate claim of the appellants. The appellants were engaged in providing services under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency, specifically providing services to M/s Bechtel & Company, LLC Sultanate of Oman. The appellants claimed a rebate of ?? 10,75,254/- on services exported out of India under Notification No. 11/2005-ST. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal stating that there is no limitation for claiming rebate under the said notification. The Revenue challenged this decision on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that Section 11B is applicable to Service Tax matters under the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Chartered Accountant for the respondent argued that the rebate claim was within the one-year period from the date of payment of Service Tax, citing legal precedents. The respondent relied on judgments stating that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to Service Tax paid for export of services. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal devoid of merits as the notification under which the rebate was claimed did not specify any time limit for filing rebate claims. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal emphasized that the notification under which the rebate was claimed did not prescribe any time limit for filing rebate claims. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the decision of the Apex Court and Tribunal supported the respondent's position. The Tribunal highlighted that the decision of the Tribunal in a previous case following the High Court's decision was applicable in this case and needed to be followed. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was correct and legal, requiring no interference, and thus rejected the appeal.