2011 (1) TMI 223 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid towards export of goods - claim filed beyond the permissible time limit - in terms of para 2 (e) of the Notification, the claims in respect of exports made in the month of March 08 are required to be filed within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter - refund claims were filed on 02.01.2009 i.e. beyond the time limit prescribed and hence the same are hit by limitation of time - no provision under law empowering to condone the above delay Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond permissible time limit as per Notification No. 40/2007 ST.
2. Eligibility of the refund claim in relation to service tax paid towards export of goods.
3. Authority's power to condone delay in filing refund claim.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim filed beyond permissible time limit
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid towards export of goods between 17.3.2008 to 14.6.2008. The time limit for filing the refund claim was extended up to 31.12.2008 as per Notification No. 40/2007 ST and a subsequent circular. However, the refund claim was submitted on 02.01.2009, beyond the stipulated deadline. Both the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on the grounds of being filed after the permissible time limit, as specified in the relevant Notification. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the delay of three days could not be condoned as it was beyond the authorities' power to do so. Therefore, the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim based on the time limit was dismissed.

Issue 2: Eligibility of the refund claim
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was no dispute regarding the eligibility of the services for which the refund was claimed. The sole issue was the delay in filing the claim beyond the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner analyzed the relevant Notifications and Circulars governing the time frame for filing refund claims for exports made during specific periods. The appellant's argument that the delay should be condoned was rejected, as there was no provision in the law to allow such condonation for delays in filing refund claims. The Commissioner concurred with the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the claim based on the time limit issue, as the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay were deemed unconvincing.

Issue 3: Authority's power to condone delay
The appellant contended that the marginal delay of three days in filing the refund claim should be condoned. However, the Commissioner maintained that the authorities did not have the power to condone such delays, especially when they exceeded the time limit specified in the Notification. The Commissioner upheld the impugned order, stating that the rejection of the claim based on the time limit was correct and legal, warranting no interference. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the authority's inability to condone the delay in filing the refund claim.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily revolved around the appellant's refund claim being rejected due to being filed beyond the permissible time limit, as specified in the relevant Notifications and Circulars. The lack of provision in the law to condone such delays led to the dismissal of the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim.