2018 (10) TMI 640 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - relevant time - Rule 5 of Export of Services Rules 2005 read with Notification No. 11/2005 ST dated 19.04.2005 - Revenue has raised the objection that service tax has been paid after receipt of FIRC which is in violation of the Notification - Held that - There is no such restriction under the Notification that the service tax has to be paid at the time of provision of service. Rather as per Export of Service Rules service is completed only on receipt of the FIRC and therefore the payment of service tax by way of cenvat credit paid on receipt of the FIRC is not wrong and therefore the rejection of rebate on this ground is not sustainable. The appellant has included the said service along with the value of service provided to the domestic customers and the learned counsel has submitted that he has already provided the value of service exported on which service tax was paid and the same comes to ₹ 1,95,50,854/- - For verification of this amount, the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the rebate amount. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of rebate claim on grounds of non-disclosure of services exported on payment of service tax
- Dispute regarding payment of service tax after receipt of FIRC
- Interpretation of Export of Service Rules and Notification 11/2005
- Necessity of separate disclosure of taxable services exported on payment of service tax

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a rebate claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning service tax paid on exported services. The appellant, a Private Limited Company providing internet and web solutions, had paid service tax on domestic services through cenvat credit and filed a rebate claim for service tax paid on exported services. The issue arose as the authorities contended that the appellant did not disclose the services exported on payment of service tax in their ST-3 returns. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the rebate claim, leading to the appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the ST-3 return did not have a specific column for showing the value of services exported on which service tax was discharged. They maintained that the taxable value declared in the return included both domestic and foreign services, with service tax paid on the latter. The appellant emphasized that the payment of service tax after receiving FIRC was legitimate and compliant with the Export of Service Rules. They highlighted the absence of a requirement in the Notification for immediate service tax payment upon invoice issuance for exported services.

The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, upheld the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the timing of service tax payment post FIRC receipt. However, the Judicial Member, after evaluating the arguments and records, found that the service tax had indeed been paid on the exported services. The Member scrutinized Notification 11/2005 and Export of Service Rules, concluding that the payment of service tax post FIRC receipt was acceptable. Additionally, the Member noted that the appellant had declared the taxable value in the ST-3 return, encompassing both domestic and foreign services, with service tax payments appropriately made.

Ultimately, the Judicial Member allowed the appeal, directing a remand for verification and sanctioning of the rebate claim. The decision highlighted the necessity of a liberal interpretation of the rebate provision and rejected the Revenue's objections based on technicalities. The judgment emphasized compliance with the Export of Service Rules and Notification conditions, providing clarity on the timing of service tax payment for exported services and the disclosure requirements in tax returns.