2013 (5) TMI 289 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim upheld under Section 11B, remittance for further verification

The Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed within the statutory limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing the appeal and ... Refund claim - Revenue rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the statutory period of one year, and secondly, on the ground that the Respondent were liable to pay service tax on GTA service, irrespective of the fact whether they had used the services of individual truck owners, lorry drivers etc. who had not issued any consignment note. - Held that:- Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable to service tax refund by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, stipulates that all refund claims need to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date. In the present case, the service tax was paid on 24.04.2008 and the refund claim was filed on 17.04.2009, hence, it was within the period of one year, as prescribed. For second issue in absence of a finding of the fact that, services were received from individual truck owners and not from GTA Service Provider against consignment notes being not recorded by the revenue, and the said plea had been accepted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without any evidence on record, I agree with the submission of the ld. AR that the fact whether the Respondent had availed the services of truck owners, lorry drivers etc., or from GTA against consignment notes, needs verification. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority. Issues:- Statutory time limit for filing a refund claim- Liability of service tax on transport services receivedIssue 1: Statutory time limit for filing a refund claimThe case involved a refund claim of service tax filed by the Respondent amounting to Rs.86,311.00. The claim was based on the grounds that the Respondent was not liable to pay service tax under the GTA Service category as they had used the services of individual truck owners and lorry drivers. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim citing it was filed beyond the statutory period of one year and that the Respondent was liable to pay service tax regardless of the service provider. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the refund claim filed on 17.04.2009 for service tax paid on 24.04.2008 was within the one-year period as prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the relevant date for filing a refund claim is from the date of payment of duty. Thus, the Tribunal found the refund claim was timely filed within the statutory limit.Issue 2: Liability of service tax on transport services receivedThe second issue revolved around the liability of service tax on the transport services received by the Respondent. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Respondent's argument that they did not receive services from a GTA but from individual truck owners and drivers, hence no service tax was due. The Tribunal agreed with this view, citing previous cases and legal principles. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to support this claim before the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to verify whether the services were indeed received from individual truck owners and not from a GTA service provider against consignment notes. The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for the limited purpose of verifying this crucial fact. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order on this issue and remanded the matter for further verification, ensuring a fair assessment of the facts before making a final decision.