2013 (12) TMI 1332 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claims - Refund in connection with export of the goods under Notification No.41/2007 - Limitation period enhanced from the relevant date the Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Whether these refund claims would be governed by the Notification No.17/2009-ST and the limitation period prescribed therein or would be governed by Notification No.41/2007-ST and limitation period of six months prescribed therein - Held that - Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 had been issued in supersession of the Notification No.41/2007-ST and at the time of filing of refund claim, it is this Notification was in force. In terms of the Board s Circular No.354/256/2009-TRU dated 1.1.2010, new Notification No.17/2009-ST does not bar its applicability to the exports that have taken place prior to its issuance and, therefore, the scheme prescribed under Notification No.17/2009-ST would be applicable even for such exports subject to conditions that refund claims are filed within the stipulated period of one year and no previous refund claims have already been filed under the previous notification. conditions prescribed in the Board s Circular are satisfied inasmuch as the refund claims had been filed within one year from the relevant date and there were no refund claims filed under the previous Notification. The impugned order rejecting the refund claims on the ground that same should have been filed under previous notification and within limitation period prescribed therein is therefore not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - while holding the refund claims have been correctly filed under new Notification No.17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and are within time, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority for deciding returns of the considering the eligibility of the services for refund in terms of the notification - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under different notifications, limitation period for filing refund claims, services covered under the notifications.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claims under Different Notifications:
The appellant, a manufacturer of wires and cables, filed refund claims for service tax paid on services used in connection with export of goods under Notification No.41/2007 and its successor Notification. The dispute arose as the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims stating they should have been filed under the old notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeals.

2. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims on the grounds of being time-barred under the limitation period set by Notification No.41/2007. The appellant argued that the claims were filed within the stipulated time under the new Notification No.17/2009-ST, which superseded the old notification. The Tribunal agreed that the new notification's limitation period of one year applied even to exports made before its issuance, as long as no previous refund claims were filed under the old notification.

3. Services Covered under the Notifications:
The Assistant Commissioner also rejected the claims citing that certain services like inland haulage and forwarding charges were not specified for refund in the notifications. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide specific findings on these services and remanded the issue to the original adjudicating authority for further consideration based on the nature of the services vis-a-vis those prescribed in the notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, holding that the refund claims were correctly filed under the new notification and within the prescribed time limit. The matters were remanded to the original authority for a detailed assessment of the services' eligibility for refund as per the notification. If the disputed services align with the notification criteria, the refund claims should be allowed based on a thorough review of the appellant's submissions.