9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent or otherwise. 4. Relevant facts after filtering out unnecessary details are appellants are engaged in providing services under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency. The appellants entered into a contract of Recruitment Services of Manual Labour with their client M/s Bechtel & Company, LLC Sultanate of Oman. Pursuant to the said contract they recruited and supplied potential labour to work on project of their client at their Sohar Aluminium Smelter Project, located in Sohar, Sultanate of Oman w.e.f. 31.08.2006. According to the appellants the said service provided to M/s Bechtel was covered by provisions of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service under sub-section 68 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with sub clause (k) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rebate in terms of this notification are that the taxable services should have been exported in terms of Rule 3 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and that payment for such export is received in convertible foreign exchange. The second condition is that Service Tax, rebate of which has been claimed, has been paid on the taxable services exported. The procedure only requires that the claim be filed with the Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise with documentary evidence. There is no other condition stipulated in this notification. The rejection of the claim therefore on the grounds of time bar and that no export documentation has been produced by the appellants is without any basis. The appellants have provided all the details as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Cellular Ltd [2014 (34) STR 890 (Tri -Mumbai)] to submit that time limit for rebate claims is as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to rebate claims under Finance Act, 1994. 6. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for respondent strongly supports the order of first appellate authority on following grounds. Statement showing the date of payment of Service Tax and date of filing rebate claim: Sr. No. Period Service Tax Amount Service Tax payment date Service Tax refund claim date 1 2 3 4 5 1 Oct 06 to Dec 06 9,64,020 06.01.2007 17.03.2008 2 May-07 1,11,234 13.07.2007 & 31.07.2007 17.03.2008 3 Total 10,75,254 i. It will be evident from the above statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of payment of Service Tax under Notification No. 11/2005 cannot be rejected on the ground that time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (a) The respondent also relies upon various judgements of the Hon'ble Tribunal wherein it is consistently held that the limitation provided under Section 11B does not apply to Service Tax paid to export of services. Sr. No. Citation 1 M/s Dss Image Tech (P) Ltd [2016 (2) TMI 657 (CESTAT-Del.)] 2 M/s JSL lIfestye Ltd [2015 (326) ELT 265 P&H] 3 M/s Hincon Technoconsult Ltd [2015 (37) STR 956 (Tri-Mum)] 4 M/s Vasudha Agencies [2015 TIOL-1470-CESTAT-MUM] (b) The rebate claim is filed by the respondent under Notification No. 11/2005-ST, dated 19.04.2005 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d covered for the rebate was August 2005 to January 2006 and the application for refund was filed on 29.6.2007. The primary adjudicating authority held that as the rebate application was filed after one year from the date of payment of service tax, the rebate claim was time-barred. iii. The appellant has contended that the rebate was claimed under Rule 5 of Export Service Rules read with Notification No. 11/2005-ST and in that notification there was no limitation period prescribed for filing rebate claim and therefore its claim cannot be rejected as time-barred. It cited the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of C. Excise, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pv. Ltd. - 2015 (321) ELT 45 (Madras) and Punjab & Hary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essentially pari materia Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules and Notification No. 19/2004-CE dated 6.9.2004 also did not contain any time-limit as was the case in respect of Notification No. 11/2005-ST. Thus the ratio of the Madras High Court judgement in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable to the present case. Indeed similar view has been held by Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of JSL Lifestyle Ltd. (supra) and also by Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi). vi. In the light of the foregoing analysis, we find that the rejection of the appellants rebate claim on the ground of time-bar is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
