TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charged service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on the said commission in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). In terms of Notification No.41/2007Cus dated 06.10.2007 as amended (refund notification) the appellant was entitled to claim refund of the service tax paid on input services, i.e. the commission agent services used for the export of goods. Accordingly, for the period from April 2008 to March 2009, the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of an amount of Rs.29,97,999/-, which is stated to have been revised to Rs.25,50,562/-. 4. Pursuant to the refund claims filed, the appellant was issued three separate show cause notices proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground that the Appellant had not fulfilled condition (ii) of Sl.No.15 of Schedule to the refund notification inasmuch as the appellant had not indicated the commission amount in all the shipping bills. In so far as the SCN No.03/2010 dated 16.02.2010 pertaining to the period April 2008 to November 2008 was concerned, in addition to the aforesaid contention, an additional ground for denial of refund was that the claim was filed beyond the six month from the end of the rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Cestat Allahabad, Balakrishna Textiles Pvt Ltd v. CCE, Ahmedabad-I, 2022 (6) TMI 613 Cestat Ahmedabad and JVS Export v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai, 2023 (7) TMI 207. It is therefore urged that the 'relevant date' for claim of refund of service tax paid on actual commissions disbursed is the date of payment of service tax under RCM and not the end of the quarter of the relevant exports. 8. As regards the non-mentioning of the commission amount on the shipping bills, she would urge that the appellant had paid service tax on the services used in the export of goods and had not availed Cenvat Credit which in turn satisfies conditions (a) through (e) under para 1 of the refund notification. Hence the appellant had substantially complied with the conditions under the refund notification and the fact that the amount of service tax claimed as refund is paid by the appellant to the commission agent on the actual amounts of commission disbursed also remains undisputed. Hence, she would contend, that for mere non fulfilment of a procedural condition, the substantial benefit of refund ought not to be denied. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Faizan Shoes Pvt Ltd v CS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he manufacture of goods Thus, the "relevant date" is relatable to the goods exported. Therefore, the application for rebate of duty shall be governed by Section 11B of the Act and therefore shall have to be made before the expiry of one year from the "relevant date" and in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The form and manner are prescribed in the notification dated 6.9.2004. Merely because in Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules, which is an enabling provision for grant of rebate of duty, there is no reference to Section 11B of the Act and/or in the notification dated 6.9.2004 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18, there is no reference to the applicability of Section 11B of the Act, it cannot be said that the provision contained in the parent statute, namely, Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable, which otherwise as observed hereinabove shall be applicable in respect of the claim of rebate of duty. 10. At this stage, it is to be noted that Section 11B of the Act is a substantive provision in the parent statute and Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules and notification dated 6.9.2004 can be said to be a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation cannot ov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 11B. 14. The Ld. Counsel is also right in her contention that in the decision in in CCE & ST, Kanpur v M/s. Pacific Leather Finishers, 2016 (2) TMI 727-Cestat Allahabad, the Tribunal has also gone on to hold that the relevant date for computing the time limit will start to run only when the right to claim refund has crystallised which would be the date when the service tax was deposited. Relevant portion is reproduced below: "6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue of time bar in this appeal is no longer res integra, and is decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd. - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the limitation cannot start to run unless right to receive a claim or refund crystallized. In the present case, the right to claim/refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. crystallized only when the service tax was deposited in October, 2008. Thus, the refund claim was filed within six months on 30-3-2009. Accordingly, we hold that the refund claim is within time. In view of the above findings, we dismiss the appeal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." (emphasis supplied) 18. The Apex Court has gone on to emphasise in the said decision that a distinction between the provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built-in with certain specific objectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other must be kept clearly distinguished. It is also noticed that the Apex Court has yet again, in the decision in Govt. of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent, 2021 (376) ELT 242 (SC), held as under: 23. It may be noticed that the 5-Judge Bench judgment did not refer to the line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. We cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio ....