2015 (2) TMI 1134 - AT - Service Tax

Period of Limitation - Refund claim - Appellant filed refund claim for the period of 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 on 16-06-2008 which was beyond time limit of sixty days but after revenue s claim of time-barred it contended that this is a re-submission made after rectification of deficiencies in response to the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.5.2008 and actual claim was filed on 28.2.2008 - Held that The application filed on 28.2.2008 did not contained the amount of refund which they sought to claim and also the classification of various input (taxable) services in respect of which the refund was claimed. The claim was also not accompanied with any documents showing payment of service tax and other documents required to be enclosed alongwith with the refund claim as per the condition laid down under the said notification. As per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, the refund claim was required to be accompanied with the documents evidencing export of goods, payment of Service Tax on the specified services for which claim for refund of Service Tax paid is filed and copy of written agreement entered into by the exporter with the buyer of said goods. In these circumstances it can not be held that the appellants had filed a refund claim (even a defective one) on 28.2.2008 and that what they did on 16.6.2008 was to re-file it after removal of defects. Therefore, the application filed on 28.2.2008 can by no stretch of imagination be called a refund claim (defective or otherwise) and held that the appellants filed the refund claim for the first time only on 16.6.2008 which is clearly beyond the prescribed time limit. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Time limit for filing refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST
- Interpretation of filing date for refund claim
- Compliance with documentation requirements for refund claim

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time limit for filing refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST
The appellants filed a refund claim for service tax paid on services used for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The claim was required to be filed on a quarterly basis within sixty days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the goods were exported. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim as time-barred since it was received after the deadline. The appellants argued that their initial filing on 28.2.2008 was within the time limit, while the subsequent submission on 16.6.2008 was a re-submission after rectification of deficiencies. The Tribunal examined previous judgments and held that the time limit should be calculated from the date of the initial filing, not the re-submission after defects were corrected.

Issue 2: Interpretation of filing date for refund claim
The Tribunal reviewed the documents filed on 28.2.2008 and found that they did not constitute a valid refund claim. The application lacked essential details such as the refund amount and classification of input services for which the refund was sought. Additionally, required documents evidencing export of goods, service tax payment, and buyer agreement were missing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the filing on 28.2.2008 could not be considered a refund claim, defective or otherwise. The subsequent submission on 16.6.2008 was deemed as the first filing, which exceeded the prescribed time limit.

Issue 3: Compliance with documentation requirements for refund claim
Under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, specific documents were mandated to accompany the refund claim, including evidence of goods export, service tax payment proof, and buyer agreement. The Tribunal noted the absence of these essential documents in the initial submission on 28.2.2008, further reinforcing the conclusion that it did not qualify as a valid refund claim. The appellants' failure to provide the required documentation within the stipulated time frame contributed to the rejection of their claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, determining that the initial filing did not meet the criteria for a valid claim and that the subsequent submission was beyond the statutory time limit. The appeal was dismissed based on the analysis of the issues involved.