2026-VIL-333-CESTAT-CHE-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-333-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Limitation period for filing refund claim of service tax on export supply - Appellant discharged service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on the commission and filed refund claims for the service tax paid. Rejection of refund on the ground that the claims were filed beyond the six-month time limit prescribed in the relevant notification - Whether the rejection of the appellant's refund claims on the ground of being filed beyond the time limit specified in the notification is tenable, or the one-year time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should prevail – HELD - The time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is one year from the 'relevant date' (the date of payment of service tax), would prevail over the time limit specified in the Notification No.41/2007-Cus dated 06.10.2007. The time limit prescribed in the parent statute (Section 11B) cannot be overridden by the subordinate legislation (the notification). The appellant had filed the refund claims within the one-year period from the date of payment of service tax, and therefore, the claims were within the limitation period - The authorities are directed to grant the refund to the appellant in accordance with law – The appeal is allowed - Non-declaration of commission amount in shipping bills - The refund claims of the appellant were also rejected on the ground that the appellant had not indicated the commission amount in all the shipping bills - Whether the non-declaration of the commission amount in the shipping bills is a mere procedural requirement or a substantive condition for the grant of refund – HELD - The non-mention of the commission amount in the shipping bills is a mere procedural condition, and the refund claims can be considered if there is documentary evidence regarding the amount of service tax paid on the actual amounts of commission disbursed. A distinction must be made between substantive conditions and mere procedural requirements, and the non-observance of the latter should not lead to the denial of the substantial benefit - The non-declaration of the commission amount in the shipping bills is only a technical breach and is condonable, as the appellant had satisfied the substantial conditions of the notification.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?