Principal Commissioner Vs Mobinteco Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)
In a recent case before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Delhi, the issue revolved around the admissibility of a service tax refund claimed by M/s. Mobinteco Ltd. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals II) Delhi, which had set aside the original order and sanctioned the refund. The primary contention was related to the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to service tax and the associated time limitation for claiming a refund.
Background:
- M/s. Mobinteco Ltd availed the services of M/s. Oak Pacific Holding, Japan, and paid service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for the invoices issued during September and October 2012.
- The service provider, Oak Pacific Holding, could not deliver the services and, in March 2014, waived its service charges.
- Mobinteco Ltd filed a refund claim on September 8, 2014, for the service tax paid on the services.
Claim Rejected on Limitation Grounds:
- The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund on merits but rejected it on the grounds of limitation, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Section 11B imposes a limitation of one year from the relevant date for claiming a refund.
Appeal and Commissioner’s Order:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
