2009 (6) TMI 633 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Time limitation - application for refund was not accompanied by the requisite documents, which defect was noted by the Superintendent of Central Excise and communicated to the party - A revised application for refund accompanied by the requisite documents was filed by the assessee on 6-5-98 - The refund application on 21-1-1998 was admittedly incomplete for want of requisite documents. It was made complete on 6-5-1998 on which date the party filed the requisite documents also - The refund claim is within time and the same requires to be disposed of in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barring of the refund claim.
2. Justification for the time frame of the refund claim.
3. Discrepancy in the filing dates of the refund claim.
4. Interpretation of completion of the refund application.
5. Decision on the appeal against the adjudicating authority's rejection.

Issue 1: Time-barring of the refund claim
The appeal concerns the Revenue's claim for the dismissal of a refund claim for duty paid in excess, amounting to Rs. 1,85,095, for the month of August 1997, on the grounds of being time-barred. The original authority rejected the refund claim citing non-compliance with the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 2: Justification for the time frame of the refund claim
The respondent filed the refund claim on 21-1-1998, within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B. However, the initial application lacked essential documents, leading to its return by the Superintendent. A revised application with the necessary documents was submitted on 6-5-1998.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in the filing dates of the refund claim
The Assistant Commissioner proposed rejecting the refund claim based on time-bar and unjust enrichment. The original authority upheld the rejection on the grounds of being time-barred. The party then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, considering the refund claim as filed on 21-1-1998.

Issue 4: Interpretation of completion of the refund application
The appellate authority determined that the refund claim should be considered as filed on 21-1-1998, despite the initial lack of essential documents. The subsequent submission of the complete application on 6-5-1998 was deemed to rectify the initial deficiency, thereby falling within the statutory time limit.

Issue 5: Decision on the appeal against the adjudicating authority's rejection
Upon review, the appellate tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision of the lower appellate authority. The tribunal agreed that the refund claim, deemed filed on 21-1-1998, was within time. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing the original authority to process the refund claim while considering whether the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer, ensuring the party's right to a fair hearing.