Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Matrix Publicities & Media P Ltd vs Commr Service Tax- Vi Mumbai on 20 January, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
WEST ZONAL BENCH
Service Tax Appeal No. 85165 OF 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-STAX-002-APP-511 to 514-
16-17 dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals),
Service Tax -II,Mumbai)
Matrix Publicities & Media Pvt Ltd .....Appellant
9th Floor, Commerz,
International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City,
Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon
Mumbai
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax -VI, .....Respondent
Mumbai 1st Floor, Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya CD Barfiwala Marg, Andheri West, Mumbai WITH Service Tax Appeal No. 85166 OF 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-STAX-002-APP-511 to 514- 16-17 dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Service Tax -II,Mumbai) Matrix Publicities & Media Pvt Ltd .....Appellant 9th Floor, Commerz, International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax -VI, .....Respondent Mumbai 1st Floor, Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya CD Barfiwala Marg, Andheri West, Mumbai WITH -2- ST/85165-85168/2017 Service Tax Appeal No. 85167 OF 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-STAX-002-APP-511 to 514- 16-17 dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Service Tax -II,Mumbai) Matrix Publicities & Media Pvt Ltd .....Appellant 9 Floor, Commerz, th International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax -VI, .....Respondent Mumbai 1st Floor, Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya CD Barfiwala Marg, Andheri West, Mumbai AND Service Tax Appeal No. 85168 OF 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-STAX-002-APP-511 to 514- 16-17 dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Service Tax -II,Mumbai) Matrix Publicities & Media Pvt Ltd .....Appellant 9th Floor, Commerz, International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax -VI, .....Respondent Mumbai 1st Floor, Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya CD Barfiwala Marg, Andheri West, Mumbai APPEARANCE:
Shri Parth Parekh a/w Ms Priyadarshini, Advocate for the appellant Shri C S Vinod, (AR) for the respondent -3- ST/85165-85168/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No: 85180-85183/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 20.01.2026 Per: AJAY SHARMA These appeals have been filed assailing the common Order-in-Appeal dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax-II, Mumbai rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant.
2. The facts in brief are that the Appellants are engaged in providing Advertising Agency Service and they filed several rebate claims under Notification No.11/2005-ST r/w Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 for service tax paid on export services, which were partly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority through various Orders-in-Original and the said rejection was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by rejecting the Appeals filed by the appellant. The reasons for rejection of rebate claims were (i) rebate claims were filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 reckoned from the date of invoice; (ii) Export invoices were issued in Indian Rupees though the consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange,
(iii) incorrect computation methodology adopted by the -4- ST/85165-85168/2017 appellant, and (iv) Non-submission of sufficient documentary evidence and lack of correlation between export invoices and corresponding Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs)
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the limitation for filing of rebate claim is to be reckoned from the date of payment of service tax and that the authorities below have committed a patent error in computing the limitation from the date of invoice. Learned counsel further submits that all the documentary evidences were produced before the authorities below, but were not appreciated properly. On non-correlation of few invoices, learned counsel submits that there was complete correlation of export invoices with the corresponding Foreign Import Remittance Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'FIRCs') which has now further been substantiated by a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 15.7.2025 produced herein with the synopsis/written submissions to establish correlation between the export invoices and the FIRCs. He also tried to demonstrate how the formula adopted by the authorities below was wrong. Per contra learned Authorised Representative on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions placed on record.
Firstly, it will be appropriate to decide the issue of limitation as -5- ST/85165-85168/2017 to what is the relevant date for filing rebate claims u/r. 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 r/w. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? It is settled legal position that the relevant date for filing of rebate claim under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 is the date of payment of Service Tax and not the date of invoice. Recent decision on this issue is Credence Design Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of S.T., Bangalore; 2025(3) TMI 1246-Cestat Bangalore. Therefore learned counsel's submission is correct that limitation has to be calculated from the date of payment of service tax. This issue is ordered accordingly. However whether the rebate claims are within the prescribed period reckoned from the date of payment of service tax is a factual aspect, which requires verification. Therefore, this issue necessarily calls for remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
5. So far as other factual issues viz. non-submission of documentary evidence in support of rebate claim and the lack of correlation of few invoices with the corresponding FIRCs are concerned, learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellant failed to produce relevant export invoices or any documentary evidence in support that's why the rebate claim was rightfully rejected by the authorities below. In my view the submission of learned Authorised Representative cannot be accepted in toto. It is well settled that procedural infractions or curable defects cannot be made the basis for denial of substantive benefits. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court -6- ST/85165-85168/2017 has laid down that substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Apart from filing service tax returns and correlation statement alongwith the appeals, learned counsel also produced Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 15.7.2025 certifying the correlation between Export invoices & FIRCs alongwith his written submissions/synopsis herein. Evidently, the authorities below did not have the opportunity to examine this additional evidence while adjudicating the rebate claim. The verification and examination of such documentary evidence, including correlation of invoices with FIRCs and correctness of computation, fall squarely within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority. Interest of justice demands that the appellant be granted an opportunity to place all relevant materials on record for verification.
6. The legal issue has already been decided herein that the relevant date for filing of rebate claim under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 is the date of payment of Service Tax and not the date of invoice. As the documentary evidence, correlation of invoices with FIRCs and computation needs fresh consideration and also for verification of the documentary evidence placed on record herein, the appeals deserve remand. In the interest of justice also I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the appellants for placing all the relevant documentary evidences before the Adjudicating Authority in support of rebate claims.
-7-
ST/85165-85168/2017
7. Accordingly the impugned order, to the extent challenged herein, is set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication of rebate claims afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove, after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court on 20.01.2026) (Ajay Sharma) Member (Judicial) //SR