9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne. 2. Vide the impugned orders, refund claims amounting to Rs. 11,32,86,358/- filed by the appellant M/s. Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. has been rejected. These refund claims pertained to the period April 2007 to December 2010. The appellant filed rebate claims in terms of Notification No. 11/2005-ST in respect of services provided in India to international inbound roamers registered with the Foreign Telecom Network Operator but located in India at the time of providing of such services treating the supply of services as export of services under Export of Services Rules, 2005. The original authority rejected the refund claims on the ground that 7 of these claims, pertaining to Order-in-Appeal dated 24/06/2011 were time-barred inasmuch as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) to proviso to sub-section(2) of Section 11B. 3.3 With regard to the time-bar aspect, the learned counsel submits that Notification 11/2005-ST does not prescribe any time-limit for presenting the export rebate claims and, therefore, the claims cannot be rejected on account of time-bar. Reliance is placed on the following decisions, namely: (i) Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central. Excise 2012 (281) ELT 227 (Mad) (ii) STI India vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2009 (236) ELT 248 (M.P.) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I vs. Swagat Synthetics 2008 (232) ELT 423 (Guj.) Wherein it was held that the ratio of the decisions under the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within a reasonable period and therefore, the normal period of limitation of one year has to be read into the service tax law as well. Reliance is placed on the decision of the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Government of India vs. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC); Porcelain Electrical manufacturing Co. vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1998 (98) ELT 583 (SC); Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) and the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Flavours ltd. 2012 (282) ELT 481. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned orders are sustainable in law and the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t transactions as specifically provided in Section 11B. 5.3 However, as regards the time-bar issue, the contention of the Revenue has merits. We notice that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which deals with refund of excise duties has been made applicable to service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act,1994. This would imply that the time-limit of one year from the date of payment of tax for filing of the refund claim would apply in respect of service tax refunds also. Even if it is argued that there is no specific time-limit set out in Notification 11/2005-ST, it is a settled position in law that though the law is silent on the time-limit applicable, a reasonable time-limit has to be read into the law. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
