The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the sanctioning of service tax refund claims on the issuance of invoices on the ground of non-violation of section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944.
Mobinteco Ltd, the respondent-assessee sought the services of Oak Pacific Holding, Japan who issued invoices for its services during September and October 2012 and the service provider was located outside India, the assessee paid service tax on these invoices under the reverse charge mechanism through three challans.
The revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax for allowing the refund claim filed by the assessee.
Rohit Issar, the counsel for the department contended that the respondent had expressed reservations about the quality and timing of the service itself and withheld payments but thereafter deposited service tax and claimed a refund after two years hence it was time barred.
Pawan Arora, the counsel for the assessee contended that the relevant date had not yet begun when the appellant filed the refund application on 8 September 2014 and the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly held that the claim of refund was not hit by limitation.
The Bench observed that the refund claim filed by the assessee was not hit by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to the service tax by section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical) upheld the sanctioning of the refund claim filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
