2018 (5) TMI 33 - AT - Service Tax

Refund/rebate claim - service tax paid on input services used in the exported goods - rejection on the ground of limitation - N/N. 41/12-ST dated 29.06.2012 - Held that - it is clear that the appellants have accepted the rejection of the cash refund/ rebate of the service tax paid on the input services used in the export of goods and took re-credit of the said amount in their books of accounts, hence the present appeals are infructuous - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against rejection of refund claims on service tax paid for exported goods due to limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad pertains to five appeals challenging the rejection of refund claims on service tax paid for exported goods. The claims were rejected due to being filed after the prescribed limitation period as per Notification No. 41/12-ST dated 29.06.2012. The appellant had filed quarterly rebate/refund claims totaling ?21,20,236 for the period October 2013 to September 2014, which were rejected for being filed after one year from the date of export.

The appellant's advocate did not dispute the delay in filing the claims and acknowledged that they were barred by limitation, making them inadmissible. However, the advocate mentioned that the appellant had taken re-credit of the rejected refund amount in their books of accounts. Despite not receiving a recovery notice after taking re-credit, the appeals were filed as a precautionary measure.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the Commissioner's findings and highlighted that since the appellant did not contest the Commissioner's order and no recovery notice was issued for the credit, the appeals were considered infructuous and should be dismissed. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument, noting that the appellant had accepted the rejection of the refund claims and had taken re-credit in their accounts. As a result, the appeals were deemed infructuous and dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claims due to the limitation period and the appellant's subsequent re-crediting of the amount in their books, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as infructuous.