TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri C Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri Vinod Awtani, Chartered Accountant for Respondent ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is field by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. MI/AV/410/2010 dated 15th December 2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the refund of rebate of the tax paid on input services is to be allowed to respondent 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to establish the fact of export. Since the rebate is not under Section 11B the question of time bar also does not apply. I therefore hold that there is no limitation for claiming rebate under Notification No. 11/2005 dated 19th April 2005. In so far as the aspect of unjust enrichment is concerned even Section 11B excludes the applicability of this requirement in the case of exports. The rebate claim is therefore not hit by unjust enrichment either. The matter is therefore remanded back to the adjudicating authority for sanction of the rebate claim in terms of the above observations. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority Revenue has filed this appeal urging following grounds. (i) Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals and set aside the order in question by holding that there is no limitation for claiming rebate under Notification No. 11/2005 dated 19.04.2005 which is incorrect as all refund claims are subject to the clause of limitation as laid down in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable in Service Tax matter in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court as reported in [2015 (325) ELT A104 (S.C.)]. The Principle Bench of CESTAT, in the case of M/s DSS Image Tech (P) Ltd as reported in [2016 (2) TMI 657(CESTAT-Del)], has held that rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is essentially pari-materia to rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules and Notification No. 19/2004-CE also did not contain any time limit as was in the case in respect of Notification No. 11/2005-ST. Therefore, it is submitted that the rebate application filed after one year from the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 Haryana High Court in the case of JSL Lifestyle limited Vs. Union of India - 2015 (62) Taxmann.com 46 (Punjab and Haryana). iv. Ld. DR contended that even in the absence of time-limit in the concerned notification time-limit of one year applicable to refunds/rebates as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 will be applicable and therefore the rebate was rightly rejected as time-barred. v. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in terms of Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005, the rebate claim is only subject to such conditions or limitations and fulfilment of such procedure as may be specified in the notification. In the concerned Notification No. 11/2005 -ST there was no time-limit prescribed during the relevant period. A combined reading of Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Notification 11/2005-ST makes it clear that the rebate scheme under the said rules is a self-contained scheme and it nowhere invites the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
