TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RCM) on the foreign Agents Commission used for the export of goods. They filed, a refund claim under the provisions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 on 6.7.2010 for refund of service tax of Rs.25,44,209/- paid by them under the category of business auxiliary service on the commission paid to their foreign agent. They have subsequently modified the amount to Rs 25,33,516/- being the actual amount of Service Tax paid. A Show Cause Notice was issued to them proposing rejection of the said refund claim on the ground that the said business auxiliary service was not specified under the said notification. The appellants in their reply to the notice requested that the refund claim be split into two portions. Rs.16,74,856/- of the claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AC (AR) for the respondent. 5. The learned consultant for the appellant submitted that they are registered for payment of service tax as a recipient of services under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service and Business Auxiliary Service under reverse charge mechanism. Since they are exporters of goods, they are eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 upto 6.7.2009 and thereafter as per Notification No. 17/2009-ST and 18/2009-ST both dated 7.7.2009. The appellant has paid service tax as a recipient of service in the commission paid to foreign agents as detailed below:- Date of Payment Amount (In Rs.) 06.07.2009 7,27,440.00 05.10.2009 6,54,383.00 06.01.2010 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dopted by them, this mistaken payment cannot be denied as a refund under section 11B itself. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 6. He relied upon the following orders in his favour:- i. Balkrishna Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2022 (6) TMI 613 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ii. Core Minerals Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai - 2023 (2) TMI 945 - CESTAT CHENNAI iii. Coromandel Stampings & Stones Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2016 (7) TMI 780 - CESTAT HYDERABAD iv. M/s. VST Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2017 (10) TMI 24 - CESTAT HYDERABAD v. M/s. Bhansali International Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2019 (7) TMI 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI vi. CCE, Kolhapur vs. Menon Exports - 2018 (4) TMI 666 - C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the export is made. The relevant paragraph of the order is extracted below:- "4.1. As issue has already been settled in favour of the appellant wherein it has been held that the 'relevant date' for computing six months periods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST to be taken the date when service tax paid and not first day of month following quarter in which export made. Therefore, merely on the ground of limitation refund cannot be rejected. In the light of the above cited decisions in the case of Pacific Leather Finishers (supra) we hold that the refund claim is within time." 10. I am in agreement with both the decisions above and hold that the time limit should be construed accordingly. 11. With respect to the claim of refund by t....