TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands refund claim for reconsideration post-amendment, broadens input credit scope</h1> <h3>MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI-II</h3> MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI-II - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 639 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of refund claims by the lower appellate authority based on FIRCs mismatch.2. Revenue's appeal against the sanctioning of refund claims.3. Interpretation of Notification No. 5/2006 regarding input service credit for exported services.4. Consideration of revised FIRCs submitted by the appellant.5. Retrospective amendment of the expression 'in' to 'for' in the notification.6. Eligibility of the appellant for the refund based on the retrospective amendment.7. Consistency in allowing input credit and granting refunds.Analysis:1. The appellant filed appeals against the rejection of refund claims totaling &8377; 1,02,94,985/- for the period December 2007 to September 2008. The rejection was primarily due to a mismatch in the FIRCs, where the certificates referred to the export of goods instead of services. The appellant submitted revised FIRCs correcting this error, leading to the claim that the objection no longer stands. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the refund sanctioning authority for reconsideration based on the corrected FIRCs.2. The Revenue appealed against the sanctioning of refund claims amounting to &8377; 3,01,62,781/- for the period November 2007 to March 2009. The main contention was the interpretation of Notification No. 5/2006, which originally used the term 'in' but was later amended to 'for.' The appellant argued that even before the amendment, circulars clarified the eligibility for refund of input service credit used for exporting services. The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment and circulars supported the appellant's eligibility for the refund, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.3. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the retrospective amendment changing 'in' to 'for' in the notification, indicating a broader scope for claiming input service credit for exported services. The Tribunal cited legal precedents and the consistency principle in allowing input credit and granting refunds. It highlighted that questioning the eligibility for refund after permitting the credit utilization is not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the appellant's appeals by remand.4. Given the nature of the refund claims and the retrospective amendment impacting the eligibility criteria, the Tribunal directed the refund sanctioning authority to process the claims promptly within one month from the date of the order. This directive aimed to ensure timely resolution and disbursement of the refund amounts related to the appellant's claims from 2007 onwards.
TaxTMI 