2010 (7) TMI 727 - AT - Service Tax

Refund in terms of notification No. 41/2007-ST - Such refund claim is required to be claimed within a period of six months from the end of the quarter during which the exports have been made - appellant filed refund claim after the expiry of six months as a condition of notification the same stands rejected by the lower authorities as time-barred - Held that - When a notification itself provides the period for claiming the exemption in terms of the said notification such period cannot be extended by taking recourse to the provisions of section 11B inasmuch as rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals) it is not a simple case of refund of excess duty paid but is a refund arising out of an exemption notification which provides a specific mode and procedure for claiming of refund of duty paid on the various services availed by an assessee order upheld and appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing refund claim under notification No. 41/2007-ST.
2. Whether the period for claiming refund can be extended beyond the time limit specified in the notification.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn/Denim Fabrics, availed input services on which service tax was paid. The appellant sought a refund under notification No. 41/2007-ST, which required claims to be made within six months from the end of the relevant quarter of exports. The refund claim was rejected as time-barred since it was filed after the stipulated period.

2. The appellant argued that the legislative intent was to grant refunds for service tax paid on services used for exports, and limitations should not hinder rightful refunds. However, the Departmental Representative contended that limitations were not procedural but statutory, emphasizing the need to adhere to the prescribed timeframes. Referring to a Tribunal decision, it was highlighted that refunds filed beyond the limitation period should be rejected.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of the legislative provisions and the specific notification. It was noted that the notification provided a 60-day window for claiming refunds, and the appellant's claim was filed after this period had lapsed. The appellant's plea to consider a one-year period under section 11B of the Central Excise Act was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification set out a distinct procedure for claiming refunds under the exemption, and this period could not be extended beyond what was specified.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the appeal based on the time limitation specified in the notification. By following precedent and interpreting the notification as a comprehensive framework for refund claims, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim, filed after the prescribed period, was rightly dismissed as time-barred.