9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1508 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - Bar of limitation - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 - Held that - refund claim pertains to the quarter October-December, 2008. The appellant have filed the refund claims on 30/07/2009 for the refund under Notification 41/2007-ST. The said Notification was amended vide Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07/07/2009 so as to allow filing of the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Inasmuch as the appellant filed the refund claims in July, 2009 for the quarter ending October-December, 2008, the refund claims are within a period of one year from the date of export of the goods. Therefore, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of refund under the aforesaid Notification subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007 as amended by Notification No. 17/2007 and the time bar aspect is not attracted. However, the appellant has to satisfy that they have fulfilled the other conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority only for satisfying that the appellant has fulfilled the other terms and conditions stipulated in Notification No. 41/2007 and the time-bar issue will have no application - Following decision of Uttam Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India 2003 (8) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007. 2. Interpretation of amended provisions extending time period for filing refund claims. 3. Application of judicial precedents and circulars in determining eligibility for refund claim. Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 The appellant, a textile division company, filed refund claims for service tax paid towards manufacturing exported textile products for the quarter October-December, 2008. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the adjudicating authority, leading to an appeal to the lower appellate authority and subsequently to the CESTAT Mumbai. Issue 2: Interpretation of amended provisions extending time period for filing refund claims The appellant argued that the time period for filing refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007 was extended to one year from the date of export of goods, as per Notification No. 17/2009. They relied on judicial decisions, including a High Court case and a Tribunal case, to support their contention that amended provisions should apply retrospectively. The appellant emphasized that as long as refund claims are filed within one year from the date of export, the benefit of the notification should be extended. Issue 3: Application of judicial precedents and circulars in determining eligibility for refund claim The CESTAT Mumbai considered the appellant's arguments in light of the judicial precedents cited, including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and a Tribunal case. Additionally, a circular issued by the Board clarified the implications of extending the time limit for filing refund claims. The CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of the refund claim filed under the amended notification, provided they satisfied other conditions stipulated in the notification. In conclusion, the CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the notification. The time-bar aspect was deemed not applicable, emphasizing the retrospective application of amended provisions and the importance of fulfilling all conditions for eligibility for the refund claim.
|
