2013 (8) TMI 217 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim under Notification No.41/2007-ST and 17/2009-ST Held that - Refund claim filed for the quarter ended March - 2009, June-2009 and September - 2009 under Notification No.17/2009 are clearly hit by limitation as appellant filed refund claim on 31/05/2010 under Notification No.41/2007-ST. The said notification requires an assessee to file a refund claim within six months from end of the relevant quarters - To that extent, refund application filed by the appellant for the quarter ended March-2009, June - 2009 and September, 2009 are correctly held as hit by limitation and there is no reason to interfere in such an order - Regarding refund claim for the quarter ended December-2009 and March 2010, refund claims are within the prescribed time but the applicant is required to file refund claim under Notification No.17/2009-ST - As per notification No. 17/2009-ST, specific category of services of service provided under section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 are only eligible for refund. The category of services claimed as refund by assessee is not eligible for refund hence question of allowing such a claim of assessee does not arise Appeal rejected Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 and 17/2009
2. Time limitation for filing refund claims
3. Coverage of services under Notification No.17/2009 for refund

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim under Notification No.41/2007 and 17/2009 for service tax paid on specified services related to exports. The claim included services like commission to overseas agents, DMF registration charges, DRA services, and traveling expenses. However, the services under Section 65(105)(zzb) were not exempted post 07/07/2009, rendering the refund claim for services after this date ineligible. Additionally, the application for refunds for services pre-07/07/2009 exceeded the prescribed time limit, making them ineligible as well. Therefore, the refund claim for services under Section 65(105)(zzb) amounting to Rs.4,13,117 was rejected.

2. The appellant also claimed a refund of Rs.28,516 for services like DMF registration charges, DRA services, and traveling expenses, not covered under Notification No.41/2007. As these services were not eligible for refund under the notification, the claim was liable for rejection.

3. The First Appellate Authority and the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, stating it was beyond the limitation period and not covered under the relevant notifications. The appellant appealed, arguing that the denial of Cenvat credit was not raised in the show-cause notice and that the refund should not be rejected solely on technical grounds. The Departmental representative reiterated the rejection based on limitations and eligibility under the notifications.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the refund claims for certain quarters were time-barred under Notification No.41/2007 and 17/2009. While claims for other quarters were within the time limit, the services claimed were not eligible for refund under Notification No.17/2009. The rejection of these claims by the lower authorities was upheld. However, it was noted that the denial of Cenvat credit was not a valid ground for rejection as it was not part of the show-cause notice.

5. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and the orders upholding the rejection of refund claims were upheld based on the limitations and eligibility criteria outlined in the notifications.