2013 (7) TMI 428 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of claim - Claim filed beyond period of 1 year - Export - Notification No. 17/2009 - Department allowed only partial refund to assessee - Held that - On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Notification No. 17/2009, the conclusion is compelling that several conditionalities enumerated therein are with regard to delineation of the taxable services in respect of which the exemption is applicable, the circumstances in which and the persons who are entitled/ disentitled to the claim for exemption and stage at which the exemption should be claimed; the time frame within which the claim for exemption could be presented, are all mandatory requirements for presenting a claim for exemption - No reason to fault with concurrent conclusion - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund disentitlement under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for service tax on specified services used in manufacturing exportable goods.
2. Claim for refund beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of export of goods.
3. Interpretation of conditions for claiming exemption under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the disentitlement of a refund amounting to Rs. 26,416/- under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The appellant, a manufacturer of exportable goods, used specified services that had suffered service tax. The Central government exempted taxable services received by exporters of goods and used for export from service tax under certain conditions. The notification required the claim for refund to be filed within one year from the export of goods. The appellant's claim of Rs. 1,22,842/- was rejected as time-barred, and only a partial refund of Rs. 32,507/- was sanctioned, with Rs. 26,416/- declared as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim beyond the one-year period stipulated in the notification. The claim filed beyond this period was deemed ineligible for the refund, in line with the provisions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.7.2009. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the conditions specified in the notification for presenting a claim for exemption, including the time frame within which the claim should be made. The conclusion was that the conditions laid out in the notification were essential requirements for claiming exemption, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the claim's non-compliance with the stipulated timeframe.

3. Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 grants the government the power to grant exemptions from the Act's provisions, subject to appropriate conditions. The judgment highlighted that the conditions outlined in Notification No. 17/2009 were crucial in determining the applicability of exemption to taxable services, the eligibility of claimants, and the timeframe for submitting exemption claims. The adjudicating and appellate authorities' concurrent findings emphasized the significance of complying with these mandatory requirements, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was therefore dismissed without costs.

Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions specified in notifications for claiming exemptions, particularly concerning the timeframe for filing refund claims. Non-compliance with such conditions can result in the disentitlement of refunds, as evidenced by the dismissal of the appellant's appeal in this case.