2015 (3) TMI 1102 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - user of services in export of goods - appellant has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 - Held that - question of time bar would not arise in the present case as the extended time limit would be available to the appellant and therefore, rejection of claim on account of time bar is not sustainable in law. As regards the various conditions stipulated, from the sample documents produced before me, it is seen that all the required information is available in the documents furnished by the appellant. Inasmuch as these have not been examined in detail by the lower authorities, I remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to go through all the documents furnished by the appellant and consider the same and sanction the refund, if found admissible. Needless to say that the appellant should be heard before passing the denovo order. The appellant also is directed to co-operate with the department in submission of the documents of exports undertaken by them - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims by lower appellate authority based on non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Notification No.41/2007-ST.
2. Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of time bar.
3. Appeal for reconsideration or remand of the matter by the appellant.
4. No objection by the Revenue for remanding the matter to the lower authorities.
5. Interpretation of the extended time limit under Notification No.17/2009-ST.
6. Examination of documents to determine fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the notification.
7. Decision to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for detailed examination of documents and consideration of refund claim.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund claims of the appellant due to non-compliance with conditions in Notification No.41/2007-ST. The appellant argued that the time limit for claims had been extended to one year from the date of export, making their claim valid. They also contended that they had fulfilled the conditions for CHA service, Goods Transport Service, and Business Auxiliary Service as per the notification. However, the lower authorities dismissed the claim without detailed examination of the documents provided by the appellant.

2. The appellant further argued that the rejection on the grounds of time bar was not valid due to the extension of the time limit to one year under Notification No.17/2009-ST. The Circular No.354/256/2009-TRU clarified that this extension applied to exports undertaken before 07/07/2009. The Tribunal agreed that the extended time limit was applicable in this case, rendering the rejection on the basis of time bar unsustainable in law.

3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the appellant contained all the required information to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the notification. As the lower authorities had not examined these documents in detail, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough review. The appellant was directed to cooperate in submitting export documents, and the authority was instructed to consider the documents and sanction the refund if found admissible, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a detailed examination of the documents provided by the appellant to determine the eligibility for the refund claim. The decision highlighted the need for proper consideration of all relevant information before reaching a final decision on the refund claims.

← Previous Next →