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>Refund claim for service tax on marketing support services to overseas entities deemed valid.</h1> <h3>Nvidia Graphics Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore</h3> Nvidia Graphics Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - TMI Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation and lack of evidence for payment of service tax.2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim.3. Examination of correctness of the claim for providing promotion and marketing services to overseas group entity.4. Applicability of rules for invoices in case of exports where tax is not collected.Analysis:1. The appellant provided marketing support services to their group companies located outside India and filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules 2005 after paying service tax and interest. The original authority rejected the claim citing reasons like filing beyond one year from the date of export, lack of description of output service in invoices, and failure to establish correlation between input and output services. The appeal against this rejection was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on limitations and lack of evidence for service tax payment.2. The Tribunal considered the appellant's reliance on a previous decision regarding the relevant date for filing refund claims. The Tribunal noted that the date of payment of service tax, not the date of export, is crucial. In this case, the service tax was paid on 18.03.2008, and the rebate claim was filed on 16.04.2008, within one year from the payment date. The rejection based on the date of export was deemed incorrect, as the refund claim can be made within one year from the tax payment date. The Tribunal also highlighted the need to verify the payment date of service tax for calculating limitations, as seen in a previous case.3. The Tribunal observed that the correctness of the claim regarding providing promotion and marketing services to the overseas group entity was not adequately examined by the original adjudicating authority. The authority could have requested evidence to support this claim instead of merely noting the term 'service fee' in the invoice. The Tribunal emphasized that in export cases where tax is paid, the standard invoice rules may not apply, especially when no CENVAT credit is claimed. The focus should be on whether tax payment, refund eligibility, and service exportation have occurred.4. Considering the fulfillment of requirements like tax payment, refund eligibility, and service exportation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh review of the refund claim. The Tribunal directed the authority to consider the observations made and reassess the claim accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the Tribunal's considerations, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further review based on the legal principles discussed.
TaxTMI 