9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Refund claim filed beyond the prescribed time limit, Jurisdictional authority for filing refund claim, Applicability of circular issued by the Board.
Refund Claim Time Limit Issue: The Revenue appealed against the impugned order where the Commissioner (A) allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent for Service Tax paid, rejecting the limitation ground. The respondent filed the refund claim on 30-5-2008 for Service Tax paid on input services up to 31-3-2008. Initially filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Chennai, it was returned with instructions to file before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the claim was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Kadapa, rejected for being beyond the six-month time limit prescribed in Notification No. 41/2007. Jurisdictional Authority Issue: The Revenue argued that the respondent filed the refund claim almost 10 months after being returned with directions to file before the proper authority, which was a delay caused by their negligence. The claim should have been filed within 60 days per Notification No. 41/2007, later extended to six months. Despite clear instructions, the respondent failed to act promptly, justifying the rejection of the claim due to their own fault. Applicability of Circular Issue: The respondent relied on a circular by the Board allowing claims from any premises/office of a merchant exporter registered for Service Tax purposes. They claimed the refund at the location of their headquarters in Chennai, arguing that their headquarters being registered justified the filing location. However, the Board's instruction applies only when the merchant exporter is registered for Service Tax purposes, which was not the case for the respondent's registered office/head office. The Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. case supported the respondent's position, stating that filing before the wrong authority could be considered as the date of filing for limitation purposes. As the Tribunal's decision was directly applicable, the Revenue's appeal was rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
|
