2013 (1) TMI 433 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax paid on GTA services and the export commission services on reverse charge basis refund claim of the same under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dtd. 06.10.07 - claim rejected on being filed after a period of expiry of 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter - Held that - Admittedly the present case relates to refund of duty paid on the excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods ultimately exported, the date on which the ship or aircraft has left India is the relevant date, in terms of sub-section B(a)(i) of section 11B. The appellant s contention that in terms of sub-section (f), the date of payment of duty would be relevant, cannot be accepted in as much as the said sub-section is residuary provision as is clear from the use of expression in any other case. As the specific date stands provided in respect of goods exported, the same has to be adopted for the purpose of limitation. It is not the appellant s plea that the goods were exported on a later date and the refund claims were filed within the period of 60 days from the quarter during which the said exports were made, no infirmity in the views adopted by the authorities below - Accordingly, the impugned orders are upheld.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST - Barred by limitation

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with three appeals having identical issues regarding the refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing bicycle parts, cleared products for domestic and export markets. The appellant failed to pay service tax initially, believing no deposit was required for services used for exports. However, upon demand from Revenue, the appellant deposited the service tax for export commission and GTA services. The refund claim was rejected as filed after the 60-day limit from the end of the relevant quarter, as required by the notification.

The advocate for the appellant acknowledged the delay in filing the refund claims but argued for adopting the limitation under section 11B of the Finance Act, 1994, instead of the notification's period. The Revenue opposed this, stating that the notification's limitation period should be adhered to without extensions.

The tribunal noted that the notification mandates filing refund claims within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter of export. Since the appellant paid the service tax post-export, the claims were filed after the specified period. The tribunal emphasized that courts cannot extend the period prescribed by the notification, even if the appellant faced difficulties in adhering to it.

The appellant's alternative argument invoking section 11B was also considered. Section 11B defines the relevant date for duty payment concerning exported goods. The tribunal held that the relevant date is when the ship or aircraft carrying the goods leaves India. As the appellant did not export goods directly but sought a refund on materials used for exports, the relevant date was clear. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the date of payment of duty should be considered, as the specific date of export was provided in the law.

Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting all appeals, as the refund claims were deemed barred by limitation under the notification's specified period and not within the scope of section 11B's provisions.