2017 (10) TMI 21 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - excess payment of service tax on provisional basis - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeal) had merely observed that the Service Tax was deposited in May, 2010. He has not examined the date of deposit of tax and the date of filing of the refund claim which were crucial issues for deciding the limitation aspect - it is appropriate that the Commissioner (Appeals) re-examines the case on facts and in law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim of service tax.
2. Compliance with procedures under CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruments.
3. Provision of documentary evidence for provisions made in the Books of Accounts.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding a refund claim on excess payment of service tax on a provisional basis. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing IC engines, had a tripartite agreement with two other companies. The royalty payment received by the respondent was based on the number of engines used by Tata Motors. The appellant Revenue claimed the refund was time-barred as per Section 11B of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, prompting the Revenue to appeal. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was indeed filed beyond the one-year limit, and the Commissioner (Appeals) needed to re-examine the case considering crucial dates of tax deposit and claim submission.

2. The appellant Revenue argued that there was non-compliance with procedures as per the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruments. However, the Tribunal's focus was primarily on the time limitation aspect of the refund claim. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing a thorough examination of facts and legal aspects, rather than delving into procedural compliance.

3. Another issue raised was the lack of documentary evidence submitted for the provisions made in the Books of Accounts. The respondent claimed that the royalty amount was estimated by Tata Motors and provisions were made accordingly. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this aspect, as the primary concern was the time limitation of the refund claim. The case was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing both parties to present their arguments comprehensively.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, focusing on the time-barred nature of the refund claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory timelines and the need for a thorough examination of crucial dates in tax matters.