2012 (8) TMI 854 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - laims were originally rejected on the ground that they were received in the office of the refund sanctioning authority beyond the time limit prescribed under Notification No.41/07 - Commissioner allowed refund - Held that - respondents entertained a bonafide belief that the claim has to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner in Mumbai since their head office was located in Mumbai. Moreover, during the relevant time the notification was still being implemented and respondents were new to the system. Further, I also find that his reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajdhani Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (4) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI is relevant. In this decision it was held that a party when prosecutes the case before wrong forum under a bonafide belief, the period spend therein would be excluded for limitation. In view of the decision cited above and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find that there is need to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims for service tax paid on taxable services used in connection with the export of goods - Time limitation for filing refund claims under Notification No.41/07 - Jurisdictional authority for filing refund claims - Bonafide belief of the respondents regarding filing claims before the wrong forum.

Analysis:

The case involved the submission of three refund claims by the respondent for service tax paid on taxable services used in connection with the export of goods for the quarters from April 2008 to September 2008. The claims were initially filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax division in Mumbai but were later transferred to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The claims were rejected initially due to being received beyond the time limit prescribed under Notification No.41/07. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims, stating they were not time-barred. This decision by the Commissioner was appealed by the Revenue.

During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent argued that the respondents believed in good faith that the claims had to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner in Mumbai, as their head office was located there. The counsel also pointed out that at that time, the notification was still being implemented, and the respondents were new to the system. The counsel referenced a previous decision by the Tribunal in the case of Rajdhani Impex Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that time spent in prosecuting a case before the wrong forum under a genuine belief should be excluded for limitation purposes. Considering these arguments and the circumstances of the case, the judge found no reason to interfere with the order allowing the refund claims. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, and the cross objections were disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund claims, emphasizing the bonafide belief of the respondents and the application of the principle established in previous case law. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and intentions of the parties involved when assessing time limitations for filing refund claims under relevant notifications.