2017 (11) TMI 541 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time bar and part refund rejected on the ground that the appellant has not provided copy of the agreement of commission paid to the foreign commission agent who provided the services to the appellant - Held that - the said refund claim has been filed within one year, the period provided for filing refund claim. As per CBEC Circular, the time-limit has been extended to one year in terms of N/N. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 - refund allowed being not time barred. The refund claim of ₹ 80,545/- has been denied on the ground that appellant has not produced copy of agreement for providing the services, which is in fact not required as per the notification in question, as the invoices issued by a foreign agent for availing the services is sufficient document to entertain the refund claim - refund cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T.
2. Refund claim for the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-6-2008 filed on 30-6-2009 as time-barred.
3. Rejection of refund claim of &8377; 43,285/- as time-barred.
4. Extension of time-limit for filing refund claim under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.
5. Denial of refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- for not providing copy of agreement for services.
6. Requirement of invoices issued by a foreign agent for availing services for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-6-2008, which was submitted on 30-6-2009 and deemed time-barred. The refund claim amounting to &8377; 43,285/- was rejected by the lower authority as time-barred. However, it was found that the claim was filed within the one-year period provided for filing the refund claim. The time-limit was extended to one year as per CBEC Circular under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. dated 7-7-2009. Consequently, the claim was held not barred by limitation, and the rejection was overturned.

2. The refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- was also contested on the grounds of not providing a copy of the agreement for services. The appellant was denied the claim based on this reason. However, it was clarified that as per the notification in question, the invoices issued by a foreign agent for availing the services were sufficient documents to support the refund claim. Therefore, the denial of the refund claim on the basis of not producing the agreement was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

3. In the absence of representation from the appellant or any request for adjournment, the matter was taken up for disposal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal highlighted that the rejection of the refund claim of &8377; 43,285/- as time-barred was unfounded as it fell within the extended time-limit of one year. Additionally, the denial of the refund claim of &8377; 80,545/- for lack of agreement copy was deemed incorrect, as invoices from the foreign agent sufficed as supporting documents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted relief as per the judgment pronounced in court.

← Previous Next →