Export of services in inbound roaming supports service tax refund, excludes unjust enrichment, and attracts refund limitation review

International inbound roaming services were treated as export of services because they were rendered to a foreign telecom service provider outside India, making the assessee eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services under the export refund framework. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was considered inapplicable to such export-related refunds in view of the statutory exemption for export transactions. For limitation, the one-year refund period under the governing service tax refund scheme was held to apply, even though the notification did not expressly state a limit, so some claims required verification for time-bar while others were treated as within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the services rendered in international inbound roaming constituted export of services so as to entitle the assessee to refund under the refund notification and the relevant service tax credit framework; (ii) whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the claimed refunds; and (iii) whether the refund claims were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the services rendered in international inbound roaming constituted export of services so as to entitle the assessee to refund under the refund notification and the relevant service tax credit framework.

Analysis: The services were held to be rendered to the foreign telecom service provider located outside India, and therefore to amount to export of services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005. On that basis, the assessee was held eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services used in relation to the exported output service under Rule 5 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2005 read with the refund notification.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the claimed refunds.

Analysis: Since the transaction was treated as export, the bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to the refund claims in view of the statutory exemption for export transactions under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the refund claims were barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was applied to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, so the one-year limitation for refund claims was held to govern service tax refunds as well. The absence of an express limitation in the notification did not exclude a reasonable time requirement. On that basis, seven claims were found to require verification for possible time-bar, while the remaining two were held not to be hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the merits and on unjust enrichment, but the limitation question survived for limited verification in respect of seven claims, with only the balance claims being finally sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of service tax for exported services is admissible where the service is provided to a foreign recipient outside India, unjust enrichment does not apply to such export refunds, and where the refund statute is silent on limitation, the limitation embedded in the governing refund framework or a reasonable period may be read into the claim.

---