SCIO Inspire Consulting Services India Pvt Limited vs CST Ch - III

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

Service Tax Appeal No. 42388 of 2016

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 388/2015 (STA – II) dated 30.12.2015 passed
by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals – II), Chennai)

M/s. SCIOinspire Consulting
Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
TVH Beliciaa Towers, Tower – 1
th
6 Floor, Block No. 94
MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 026.

Vs.

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent
Chennai South Commissionerate
MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

APPEARANCE:

Smt. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
Smt. G. Krupa, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM

Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

FINAL ORDER NO. 41147/2026

Date of Hearing : 15.10.2026
Date of Decision: 30.10.2026

This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.
388/2015 (STA – II) dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of
Service Tax (Appeals – II), Chennai.
Brief Facts
2. The appellant, a provider of Information Technology and
Business Support Services, filed a rebate claim of ₹ 16,62,591 on
01.08.2013 under Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, in
respect of an export invoice dated 30.06.2012. After due process of
law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority citing the ground of limitation,
rejected the rebate claim for having been filed more than one year

2

from the date of the export invoice. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner
(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and hence the present appeal
before this Tribunal.
3. Smt. Sridevi, Ld. Counsel appeared for the appellant and Ld.
Authorized representative Smt. G. Krupa appeared for the respondent.
Submissions made by the Appellant
3.1 Smt. Sridevi, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted as
follows:-
A. The Appellant, a provider of IT and Business Support Services,
raised an export invoice dated 30.06.2012 on SCIOinspire Corp., USA,
for USD 2,39,989 and paid service tax of ₹ 16,62,591 for June 2012
through its CENVAT account. The consideration was realised in two
instalments: USD 76,741 on 26.07.2012 and USD 1,63,248 on
23.08.2012, when full realisation was completed.
B. The Appellant filed a rebate claim dated 30.07.2013, received on
01.08.2013, under Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, read
with Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005. Though the
Adjudicating Authority accepted that the export, tax payment and
threshold conditions were satisfied, it rejected the claim under Section
11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as time-barred, reckoning
limitation from the invoice date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld
the rejection, relying on clause (a) of Explanation (B) to Section 11B
and CCE Vs GTN Engineering (India) Ltd. [2012 (281) E.L.T. 185
(Mad.)].
C. Limitation should run from 23.08.2012, when the export
proceeds were fully realised, and not from the invoice or tax-payment

3

date. Under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, as
applicable up to 30.06.2012, receipt of consideration in convertible
foreign exchange was essential for treating the service as exported.
The right to claim rebate could not arise before realisation, and
limitation could not commence earlier.
D. Condition 2(a) and paragraph 3(ii)(a) of Notification No.
11/2005-ST required receipt of export proceeds and documentary
proof thereof. Since the prescribed declaration also required
confirmation of full receipt, a claim filed before realisation would be
premature. Reckoning limitation from the invoice date could deprive
an exporter of an effective filing period where proceeds were realised
towards the end of the period permitted under RBI regulations.
E. Clause (a) of Explanation (B) to Section 11B, which expressly
refers to “goods exported out of India”, did not govern export of
services. Reliance was placed on Trade Facility Circular No. 1/2010
dated 13.04.2010, issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune, which identified realisation of export proceeds as the relevant
date for rebate on exported services.
F. Reliance was also placed on CCE, Cus., Delhi Vs Blackberry
India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (45) G.S.T.L. 272 (Tri.-Del.)], wherein the
Tribunal held that export of services was complete upon realisation of
foreign exchange and that the realisation date was relevant for refund
of unutilised CENVAT credit. The learned Counsel submitted that the
decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reported in
2024 (387) E.L.T. 642 (S.C.), and contended that the rebate claim had
therefore been wrongly rejected as time-barred.

4

Submissions made by the Respondent-Revenue
3.2 Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. G. Krupa appeared for the
Respondent. She submitted that:
A. The rebate claim was governed by Rule 5 of the Export of
Services Rules, 2005, read with Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated
19.04.2005. The Appellant had satisfied the conditions for treating the
services as exported and the requirements under the Notification.
B. However the rebate claim, received on 01.08.2013, was filed
more than one year after the export invoice dated 30.06.2012. It was,
therefore, barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise
Act, 1944, as applicable to service tax.
C. She prayed that the appeal be rejected.
Findings
4. I have considered the submissions of the rival parties and
examined the records. The Original Authority in his Order has observed
that the assessee have satisfied all conditions laid down under Export
of Services Rules 2005 to treat the services as have been exported and
condition 20. 2 (a) of Notification NO. 11/2005 ST is also fulfilled. The
only issue of dispute is whether limitation for the rebate claim under
Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, read with Notification No.
11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005, is to be reckoned from the date of the
export invoice or the date of realisation of export proceeds.
5. The Appellant raised the export invoice on 30.06.2012 and paid
service tax of 16,62,591 by debit to its CENVAT account. The
₹
consideration of USD 2,39,989 was realised in two instalments, the
entire amount having been finally received on 23.08.2012. The rebate

5

claim, received on 01.08.2013, was thus filed within one year of full
realisation, though beyond one year from the invoice date.
6. Under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, as
applicable during the relevant period, receipt of consideration in
convertible foreign exchange was a condition for treating the service
as exported. Notification No. 11/2005-ST likewise required receipt of
payment in convertible foreign exchange and documentary proof
thereof. The date of realisation is, therefore, material in determining
the relevant date for limitation.
7. In GTN Engineering (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court
considered the relevant date in the context of goods that were
exported. The decision cannot, without further analysis, be applied to
the export-invoice date pertaining to the export of services, for which
the statutory framework is different.
8. A Division Bench of this Tribunal in Sutherland Global Services
Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai
[2026 (10) TMI 966 - CESTAT CHENNAI / FINAL ORDER NO.
41087/2026, dated: 13.10.2026], applied the principles laid down by
the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs Span
Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB], and
accepted the date of receipt of export consideration as relevant for
limitation. We find this reasoning applicable to the present case. It
held:

“7. The issue stands clarified by the Larger Bench of the
Tribunal Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd . (supra), which
held that the limitation of one year is to be reckoned
from the last day of the quarter in which the foreign
exchange is received. The Larger Bench did not dispense

6

with the application of Section 11B but determined the
relevant date for export of services in the context of Rule 5
and the applicable notification. Accordingly, the
Department’s contention that limitation must invariably be
reckoned from the date of the export invoice cannot be
accepted. The plea that Notification No. 14/2016-CE (NT)
dated 01.03.2016 is prospective does not, by itself, displace
the principle laid down by the Larger Bench regarding
determination of the relevant date. Hence the issue on
merits is decided in favour of the appellant and the
impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent.”
(emphasis added)


9. Since the entire export consideration was finally realised on
23.08.2012 and the claim was received by the Department on
01.08.2013, the claim was filed within one year of realisation. The
rejection of the claim as time-barred by reckoning limitation from the
invoice date is, therefore, unsustainable. That being the only issue
involved the impugned order merits to be set aside
Conclusion
10. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed on the
issue of limitation, with consequential relief in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Order pronounced in open court on 30.10.2026)




Sd/-
( M. AJIT KUMAR )
Member (Technical)


Rex