2013 (5) TMI 181 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of Refund claim Availment of benefit of Notification No.41/07-ST 66, 499/- in respect of the service tax on the commission paid to the overseas commission agents the period of export is from August 2008 to October 2008. In this case even if the limitation period of one year under the new notification no.17/09-ST dated 7.07.2009 is applied the claim is time barred as the refund claim has been filed on 11.12.2009. Denial of refund of service tax for the period of from April 2008 to June 2008 Held that - In respect of refund of service tax of 85, 225/- which is the service tax paid in respect of the payment to the commission agents abroad while the refund claim could have been filed upto December 2008 the refund claim in this case is time barred.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund for Technical Inspection & Certification services and Commission agents abroad for procuring export orders.
2. Interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims under notification No. 41/07-ST and notification no.17/09-ST.
3. Justification for delay in filing refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of sports goods, sought a refund of service tax under Notification No.41/07-ST for services used in exporting goods. Refund was denied for Technical Inspection & Certification services and Commission agents abroad due to non-compliance with conditions. The appellant did not contest the denial for inspection services but challenged the denial for business auxiliary services from overseas agents. The dispute centered on the limitation period for filing refund claims, which was six months under the notification. The appellant argued that a new notification extended the limitation to one year from the date of let export order, making their claims timely. The Tribunal considered the timing of service tax payments, export proceeds, and the issuance of the new notification to determine the applicability of the extended limitation period.

2. In Appeal No. ST/3651/2012, the Tribunal found the refund claim for business auxiliary services to be within the extended limitation period and allowed the appeal. However, in Appeal No. ST/3644/2012, the refund claim for commission paid to overseas agents was time-barred as it was filed after the extended limitation period, leading to dismissal of the appeal. Similarly, in Appeal No. ST/3920/12, the refund claim for commission paid abroad was also deemed time-barred due to a delayed filing, resulting in dismissal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely compliance with the prescribed limitation periods under the relevant notifications.

3. The Departmental Representative defended the denial of refund claims based on the limitation periods specified in the notifications. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records to determine the validity of the refund claims. While allowing one appeal due to the timely filing within the extended limitation period, the Tribunal dismissed the other appeals for failing to meet the prescribed timelines. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and justifying any delays in filing refund claims to ensure compliance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of denial of refund, interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims, and the justification for delay in filing claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.