2012 (11) TMI 700 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the service tax paid as per Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 06.10.2007 - denial of claim as time barred - Held that - As per para 2 (e) of Notification No. 41/2007-ST prior to its amendment, the exporter could claim refund before the end of August 2008. Any refund claim filed after August 2008 but before 18.11.2008 would have been time-barred. As on 18.11.2008, the date with effect from which the period of limitation was extended to 6 months, the exporter acquired the right to claim refund and this right could be exercised up to 31st December 2008. This clarification is of no aid to the appellant who exported goods in the quarter January to March 2008 and filed refund claim on 10.06.2008. The subject amendment can, by no stretch of imagination, be capable of enabling the appellant to file refund claim beyond the prescribed period of 60 days inasmuch as the amendment itself came into effect after the period of 6 months from the last date of the quarter January to March 2008 - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time limitation under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007; Applicability and retrospective effect of amending Notification No. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008; Interpretation of limitation period for filing refund claims under the notifications.

Analysis:
The appellant exported readymade garments and claimed a refund of service tax paid on taxable services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. The refund claim was rejected as time-barred due to being filed beyond the 60-day limit specified in the notification. The appellant argued that an amendment in Notification No. 32/2008-ST extended the limitation period to 6 months with retrospective effect, citing a Board's circular for support. The issue revolved around whether this extension had retrospective effect to validate the appellant's refund claim filed on 10.06.2008.

The Superintendent (AR) contended that the amending notification did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to the appellant's claim. Reference was made to a previous case where a similar amendment was held not to be retrospective. The Tribunal analyzed the legal principles and held that the amending notification did not explicitly provide for retrospective operation. Therefore, the extension of the limitation period from 60 days to 6 months could not be applied retrospectively, aligning with a similar decision in a previous case.

The Tribunal also considered a different view taken in another case but distinguished it based on the timing of relevant judgments and the absence of certain legal precedents in the latter case. The Board's clarification regarding the extension of the limitation period was found to be specific to a different quarter than the one relevant to the appellant's claim. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim was time-barred as the amendment came into effect after the 6-month period from the relevant quarter had already lapsed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the interpretation of the limitation period under the notifications.

In summary, the judgment delved into the interpretation of time limitations for filing refund claims under specific notifications, analyzing the retrospective effect of amendments and considering relevant legal precedents to determine the validity of the appellant's claim. The decision was made based on the lack of retrospective intent in the amending notification and the specific timing constraints applicable to the appellant's case.