Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 380 - AT - Service TaxRefund of accumulated input tax credit - export of services - Benefit of N/N. 14/2016-C.E.(N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 - effect of notification, whether retrospective or prospective? - HELD THAT:- Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits the service provider for claim of refund of service tax paid on the input services used/utilized for exportation of the output service. In exercise of the powers conferred in the said statutory provisions, the Central Government had issued the Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.) dated 18.06.2012, prescribing the procedure, safeguards and limitations for allowing the Cenvat benefit. The said notification, vide paragraph 3(b) has prescribed that the application in prescribed form shall be filed by the claimant before expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said statute has provided for a time limit of one year from the ‘relevant date’ for lodgement of the refund claim application. Relevant date prescribed therein is in context with situations envisaged under the Central Excise statute, concerning the excisable goods. The issue with regard to the relevant date for consideration of refund of service tax on export of service was also considered by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Hyundai Motors (I) Engineering (P) Ltd., [2016 (7) TMI 1346 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], holding that the period of limitation of one year should be computed from the date of FIRC. With regard to the submissions of Revenue that the Notification No. 14/2016-C.E. (N.T.) is prospective in nature and the benefit provided there-under is not applicable to the claims filed prior to such date, it is the settle principle of law that the beneficial amendment to the statute should be given effect to retrospectively. Denial of the refund benefit of service tax paid on Real Estate Agent Service - HELD THAT:- Such service was used by the respondent for obtaining office premises for rendering the output service, which were exported by them. Since, nexus between the input and output services were established, such disputed service should qualify as input service for the purpose of taking of Cenvat Credit and subsequent refund thereof. Further, the correctness of availment of Cenvat Credit at the stage of filing of refund claim cannot be questioned, since the statute deals with the situation differently. Rebate claim - time limitation - Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent had complied with the conditions and the procedures laid down under the said notification - With regard to the period of limitation for filing of rebate claim, the issue is no longer res integra in view of Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. Though, the judgment was delivered in context with refund of service tax under Notification No. 27/2012-C.E.(N.T.) dated 18.06.2012, but the concept of relevant date considered therein should equally be applicable to the case of rebate claims. Rebate claim - input service - works contract service used by them for repair and maintenance of UPS system, PAC units and air conditioners installed within the office premises and used in providing the exported output service - HELD THAT:- In the present case, since the services were used for the purpose of maintenance and repair of UPS systems and air conditioners and not for construction of any civil structure, such works contract service, in our considered view, should merit consideration as input service for the purpose of the benefit of refund/rebate claim. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|