9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 159 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground that the claim was filed after expiry of one year from the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - Tribunal in the case of M/s Paul Mason Consulting India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCEx., & S.Tax, Vadodara 2015 (12) TMI 1056 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , observed that the refund claim filed within one year from the date of export invoice, is not hit by limitation - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to decide the refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% EOU, filed refund claims of service tax on input services under Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The Adjudicating Authority partly rejected the claim due to filing after the one-year limit specified in Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The appellant cited case laws to support their claim, highlighting precedents where time limits were not a hindrance to refund claims. Notably, the Tribunal observed that one refund claim per quarter is permissible under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal examined Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant date for export-related refund claims was detailed, specifying dates for different modes of export. The Madras High Court's decision in a similar case emphasized the importance of filing refund applications within the time limit set by Section 11B. In a separate case, the Madras High Court clarified that while Section 11B does not cover CENVAT credit refunds, Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) extends the time limit for such claims. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in another case, emphasizing that refund claims filed within one year from the export invoice date are valid. The Tribunal aligned with the Madras High Court's interpretation, equating CENVAT credit with duty for the purpose of time limits. Conclusively, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the refund claim in adherence to Section 11B and relevant judicial precedents. The appeal was allowed for further review and decision based on the legal framework discussed.
|
