Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.
It is settled law that the dutiability of the final products or inputs, the benefit of cenvat credit in respect of inputs and input services is made available, provided the assessee has necessary documentary evidence and necessary evidence to show utilisation of such input services and in this case, there is no finding that input services were not utilised in providing output services, for which service tax has been paid.
9. This Court in the Tax Appeal No.1367 of 2009 has taken the view that on a conjoint reading of sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy a penalty below the minimum prescribed limit. If the authority imposing the penalty is not entitled to levy below the minimum prescrib
We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre-deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes.
Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.
The only ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is that the original copy of TR-6 challan was not produced. Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the refund application on merits after taking into account the original copy of the TR-6 challan produced by the appellant. The same can be accepted, if on verification, the department is satisfied about its authenticity.
Whether, in the remanded matters, the appellant should be required to establish integral connection between the service and the manufacture of final products for the benefit of CENVAT credit on the service as held by the learned Member (Judicial) relying on the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd (vide supra)
In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 2/1/2009. The learned Consultant’s contention is that the marginal delay of 3 days should be condoned. Since there is a delay of three days, it is not within the power of the authorities to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, that too a time limit which is envisaged in the Notification.
I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.
