CESTAT Upholds Service Tax Refund to Go Go International: Rejection on Export Services for Limitation and Minor Procedural Lapses Set Aside [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed Go Go International's appeal, holding that a refund of service tax on export-related services cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation or minor procedural lapses when the underlying claim is substantiated.

The appellant, M/s. Go Go International Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the export of goods. They filed multiple refund claims for service tax paid on transportation and courier services used for exporting their products. In two appeals, they argued that their refund claim was filed within the prescribed limitation period, as it was made within three months of the actual payment of the tax following an audit objection.

In the third appeal, they contended that the rejection of their claim for courier services due to minor infractions, such as not mentioning the Importer-Exporter Code on initial invoices, was unjustified, as they had subsequently provided all necessary documentation to prove the services were export-related.

The Revenue, however, had rejected the refund claims. The respondent (Commissioner of Central Excise) argued that the claims were time-barred, having been filed beyond the one-year period prescribed under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. Furthermore, for the courier services, the department upheld the rejection on the grounds that the invoices did not comply with the specific conditions mentioned in the notification.

A bench of Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial), after perusing the records, observed that the authorities below had misinterpreted the limitation period. The Tribunal held that the period starts from the date of payment of tax, and since the appellant had filed the claim within three months of payment, it was timely.

Regarding the procedural lapses, the Tribunal relied on a Board Circular and previous judgments, noting that the appellant had cured the initial defects by producing all relevant documents. The Tribunal emphasized that a substantial refund claim cannot be denied for such minor infractions that were subsequently rectified.

Consequently, the CESTAT held that the refund claims were admissible. In allowing the appeals filed by Go Go International, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, confirming that rejections based on a hyper-technical interpretation of the limitation period or on minor procedural deficiencies, once rectified, are not sustainable in law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates