TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In any case, it is a settled matter that the unjust enrichment does not arise in the case of export of services. On the issue of limitation, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on Eaton Industries (2010 (12) TMI 71 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) is clearly misplaced. -The provisions of Central Excise Act including Section 11B have been made applicable to Service Tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B will apply. - amount for which refund has been claimed was paid in cash on 5.2.2011 and the refund application was filed on 28.7.2011. Therefore, the refund was filed on 28.7.2011. - refund allowed on merit as well as period of limitation - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/507/12 - Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the service provided is to be treated as export of service which is exempted from liability of payment of Service Tax under Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the appellant is not entitled to refund of Service Tax as they had already re-credited the amount of Service Tax paid by them in their CENVAT Credit Account and they would be unjustly enriched if such refund is allowed to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the refund claim is time barred as the relevant date in the case of export of service is the date when the payment of service exported by them has been received by the assessee. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings as to why the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 18,26,064/- was not admissible to the appellant. The entire sequence of events show that since the appellant was not required to pay the Service Tax on the export of service, the status of CENVAT Credit Account needs to be restored to its original status. The appellant debited ₹ 18,26,064/- from their CENVAT Credit account for payment of duty on export of service, which was not required to be paid. Therefore, as the matter stands today, this CENVAT Credit is to be restored in the CENVAT account. Further, since the appellant had paid the amount of ₹ 18,26,064/- in cash, the same is to be refunded as the amount was paid by them wrongly. I do not see how this refund will amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause (B), the relevant date as specified for various circumstances from clause (a) to (f). The clauses at (a) to (e) do not apply in the present case. Clause (f) states that in any other case, the date of payment of duty . 5.3 In the present case, the amount for which refund has been claimed was paid in cash on 5.2.2011 and the refund application was filed on 28.7.2011. Therefore, the refund was filed on 28.7.2011. Therefore, the refund was filed well within the period of one year form the relevant date specified under Section 11B. Therefore, the refund claim is not hit by the bar of limitation. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
