2019 (10) TMI 1044 - HC - Service Tax

Court allows appeal delay, reviews service tax refund eligibility & time limits under Central Excise Act

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Customs, Rohtak Versus M/s Registrar, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar

The court allowed the delay in filing the appeal, considered the eligibility for refund of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, discussed the ... Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Refund of service tax - refund which was beyond one year is denied - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as refund amount i.e. 42, 39, 625/- is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Eligibility for refund of service tax under reverse charge mechanism.3. Applicability of time limit for refund under Section 11 B(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. Refund eligibility based on payment date.5. CESTAT's decision-making process and discussion of facts.6. Compliance with procedure and time limits for availing benefits under the law.7. Monetary limit for maintainability of the appeal.Condonation of Delay:The appeal faced a delay of 158 days, leading to the filing of CM 2101-CII/2019 for condonation of the delay. The application was supported by the affidavit of the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, Rohtak, and the court allowed the delay in filing the appeal.Eligibility for Refund of Service Tax:The case involved a respondent university registered with the Service Tax Department, receiving services from a Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency. The university paid service tax under the reverse charge mechanism but claimed a refund as it was not liable to pay service tax per a specific notification. The adjudicating authority partially allowed the refund within one year of payment but denied refunds beyond one year. Subsequent appeals and orders raised questions on the eligibility for refund, payment date criteria, and compliance with relevant laws.Applicability of Time Limit for Refund:Key legal questions raised included whether the respondent was eligible for a refund within the last year from the refund claim date, if the refund was limited to service tax paid after a specific date, and whether service tax paid before a certain date was time-barred and not refundable under Section 11 B(f) of the Central Excise Act.CESTAT's Decision-Making Process:The appeal questioned whether the CESTAT's decision was appropriate, considering if all relevant facts were discussed before reaching a conclusion. The thoroughness of the decision-making process was a critical aspect of the appeal.Compliance with Procedure and Time Limits:The case highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedures and time limits prescribed by the law, specifically referencing Section 11 B in determining eligibility for benefits under the law. Compliance with legal requirements was a significant factor in assessing refund claims.Monetary Limit for Maintainability of the Appeal:During the hearing, it was noted that the appeal amount was below the monetary limit set by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Consequently, the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal while keeping the legal questions raised open. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the mentioned liberty.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the various issues, legal questions, and outcomes involved in the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.