Case Law Details
Balkrishna Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods. The assessees have raised the contention that payment of service tax on commission agent service was made only on 31-3-2008 and 21.04.2010 and therefore refund claim is within the time limit of one year from the date of payment of service tax. We find that a similar issue came up before Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service tax, Kanpur Vs. Pacific Leather Finishers 2016 (43) S.T.R. 273 (Tri. – All.) (supra) wherein Tribunal observed as under:
“6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue of time bar in this appeal is no longer res integra, and is decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. – 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the limitation cannot start to run unless right to receive a claim or refund crystallized. In the present case, the right to claim/refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. crystallized only when the service tax was deposited in October, 2008. Thus, the refund claim was filed within six months on 30-3-2009. Accordingly, we hold that the refund claim is within time. In view of the above findings, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and confirm the order-in-appeal. The respondent assessee will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any, in accordance with law.”
As issue has already been settled in favour of the appellant wherein it has been held that the ‘relevant date’ for computing six months periods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST to be taken the date when service tax paid and not first day of month following quarter in which export made. Therefore, merely on the ground of limitation refund cannot be rejected. In the light of the above cited decisions in the case of Pacific Leather Finishers (supra) we hold that the refund claim is within time.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
