Tribunal Grants Appeal on Time-Barred Refund Claim

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred under Rule 5 read with Section 11B of the Act. The appellant, a service provider and exporter, had a dispute with the revenue regarding service tax liability on exported services pre-2014. The Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed within two months of its decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries case. The Tribunal held that the appellant's refund claim was within the time limit and granted the appeal with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Rule 5 read with Section 11B of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider and exporter, had a dispute with the revenue regarding liability for service tax on exported services pre-2014. The dispute was resolved in favor of the appellant on 16.03.2018 by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed in March 2018, which was rejected as time-barred for not being filed within one year of service tax payment. The appellant argued that as the liability was declared unconstitutional, Section 11B should not apply, citing various High Court judgments. Alternatively, they claimed the refund was filed within two months of the Tribunal's decision. The Authorized Representative relied on Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court case to argue the refund was time-barred.

The Tribunal noted the undisputed dispute between the appellant and revenue regarding service tax liability on exported services. The appellant paid service tax during the impugned period but was later found not liable. The refund claim was filed within two months of the Tribunal's decision, making it timely according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within the time limit and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

---