TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents by both the lower authorities. 2. The appellant is providing "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Consulting Engineer's Service" to its group companies situated outside India and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 (Rules) read with Notification No. 11/ 2006-ST dated19.04.2005 as they paid service tax on the services exported by them. The details of the claims are as under:- S.No. Date of Filing Period of Refund Claim Amount (in Rs.) 1. 13.03.2007 October, 2005 to march, 2006 10,71,365/- 2. 07.12.2007 March, 2006 8,56,413/- 3. 07.12.2007 April, 2006 to September, 2006 8,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side India and it is a settled principle that exports cannot be subjected to tax. 5. The learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the authorities below and placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC) and B.T. (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India (2023) 13 Centax 89 (Delhi). 6. Having heard both the sides and perused the records of the case and the statutory provisions. We may first consider whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Act are applicable and if so, the claim for rebate made by the appellant is time barred. As per the provisions of Section 83 of the Finance Act, various provisions of the Central Excise Act are made applicable to the service tax prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e synopsis, where it has been stated as under:- "Consequently, from 01 April 2006 to 31 August 2007, the appellant exported services with payment of service tax and filed applications for claiming a rebate of the service tax so paid as per Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 (the rules)" 8. Thus, the appellant exported services with payment of service tax and filed applications for claiming a rebate of service tax paid as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 2005. Hence the contention that what is being claimed is not tax but was only a deposit is unsustainable. 9. We may now consider whether the claim of the appellant was within time as per Section 11B. The chart reproduced above shows the date of filing the rebate claims for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification." The appellant though had an option to export without payment of service tax, however, under the self-assessment, had chosen to assess and deposit the service tax at the time of export of service. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant is unsustainable and as observed by the Commissioner that the appellant had not paid the service tax at the instance of the department. Moreover, the provisions of Section 73A of the Act provides for such contingency that, "where any person has collected any amount, which is not required to be collected from any other person, in any manner, as representing service tax, such person shall forthwith pay the amount so ....