2012 (5) TMI 63 - AT - Service Tax

Refund - Notification No.17/09-ST dated 7.7.09 - Revenue felt that the claim was not filed within the time limit prescribed, Revenue issued a show cause notice for rejecting the refund - Held that the claim was filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax to the service provider has been found to be false as per the finding in order in appeal in para 5.4. At any rate, since the notification contains both the conditions that is proviso (e) of Clause 1 and proviso (f) of clause 2, the actual requirement is that the exporter should have paid service tax to the service provider and thereafter made a claim within one year from the date of export - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 41/07-ST.
2. Compliance with time limits for filing a refund claim under the notification.
3. Requirement of payment of service tax to the service provider before making a refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of conditions for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 41/07-ST. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fabrics and cotton yarn, availed input services and claimed a refund of service tax paid on these services. However, at the time of deciding the claim, the notification had been replaced by a new one, No. 17/09-ST. The crucial issue was whether the refund claim was filed within the stipulated time frame as per the conditions of the notification.

2. The Revenue contended that the appellants did not file the refund claim within the prescribed time limit, as required by proviso (f) of clause 2 of the notification. The Revenue issued a show cause notice to reject the claim on this basis. The appellants argued that they filed the claim within one year from the date of payment of service tax to the service provider, as per proviso (c) of clause 1 of the notification. They maintained that since the payment was made later, the refund claim was timely filed one year from the payment date.

3. The learned AR for Revenue disputed the appellant's claim, asserting that the conditions in the notification necessitated both the payment of service tax to the service provider and the filing of the claim within one year from the date of export. The AR highlighted that the appellant failed to provide evidence demonstrating compliance with these conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appellant's argument and upholding the Revenue's position on the timing and requirements for filing the refund claim.

This detailed analysis of the judgment elucidates the issues surrounding the interpretation of conditions and compliance with time limits for filing a refund claim under the relevant notification, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the appeal by the Tribunal.