2022 (6) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re rejected. 1.1 Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Woven Fabrics of Syn, Staple-fiber falling under Tariff heading No. 52.12 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant are also exporting their goods. The Appellant have filed the five refund claims of accumulated credit during the period April 2008 to March 2009 in respect of service tax paid on Commission Agent's service. The service provider i.e. Commission Agent is located outside India and his services were used for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 read with Notification No. 17/08-ST dated 01.04.2008. Department has issued five Show Cause Notices as the Appellant had not allegedly fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2010, five refund claims for Rs. 9,56,645/- were filed for such service tax. The denial of the Appellant's refund claims on the ground of time bare is wholly illegal because refund claims filed on 31.05.2010 for the amount of service tax paid as tax on 31.03.2010 were not barred by limitation. An exporter can file a refund claim for service tax in respect of taxable services used for export, only if service tax was actually paid on the service, and not if no service tax was paid. In the present case, the Appellant acquired a right or locus to claim refund only when service tax was actually paid on Commission Agent's Service and no service tax have been paid on such services during the period April 2008 to March 2009, when the export were m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....FORD INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI -2010-TIOL-1153 • COMMISSIONER, PONDICHERRY VS. G. JIJITH KUMAR & OTHERS -2009-TIOL-592 03. On the other hand, Shri Dharmendra Kanjani, learned Superintendent (AR) defended the impugned order and submitted that the refunds have rightly been rejected on account of time bar. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- • CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA -2017 (349) ELT 236 (BOM) • TRANSIA BIO-MEDICALS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. -2021(376) ELT 381 • MMTC LTD. VS. COMMR OF C.EX & ST. - 2019 (26) GSTL. 248 04. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that Learned Commis....